Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Vehicle Emissions

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the total vehicle emissions in the United Kingdom for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen (a) in 1970 and (b) at the latest available date. [23878]

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Road transport emissions of carbon monoxide were 2.4 million tonnes in 1970 and 5.1 million tonnes in 1993; emissions of nitrogen oxides were 0.6 million tonnes in 1970 and 1.1 million tonnes in 1993; emissions of volatile organic compounds were 0.6 million tonnes in 1970 and 0.9 million tonnes in 1993.
Over the same period, total traffic rose from 200 billion to 410 billion vehicle kilometres.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Do not those figures prove not only that we can meet our existing targets on emissions for the year 2005, but that if the 20-point plan outlined in the document "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge"—commissioned jointly by the Departments of Transport and of the Environment—were implemented in full, we should do considerably better than that? Does that not show that ours is the only party with realistic policies to deal with such difficult environmental problems, and that the Labour party is bereft of such policies?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Conservative party has consistently shown itself to be the only party prepared to grapple with the genuinely difficult issues involved in air quality. He is also right that the air quality statement produced by the Government will enable us to fulfil our Rio targets.

Ms Walley: It is difficult to understand how the Government can claim such credit when they are merely looking through rose-tinted spectacles. People throughout the country are concerned about pollution, just as people were concerned about smog years ago. We have still heard nothing about how the Government intend to monitor emissions of PM10, which is clearly a major pollutant. What powers will now be given to local authorities so that we can start to improve the quality of life for people in both urban and rural areas?

Mr. Norris: The facts are quite the reverse. As the hon. Lady knows, it is the Government who are introducing tighter emission standards more than a year before the date when we are required to do so by the European

Commission, and that it is her hon. Friend the well-known working-class Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who has consistently refused to commit himself to any air quality policy; he is frightfully good at defining the problem, but pretty poor when it comes to the solution.

Sir Peter Emery: I declare an interest as chairman of the National Asthma Campaign. Will my hon. Friend consult Ministers at the Department of Health to ensure that, when there are major inversions in the weather and we experience the problem encountered four weeks ago, the Government can warn people about the conditions that are likely to result from monoxides in the air? It would be helpful if the Government took the lead.

Mr. Norris: As my right hon. Friend will know, the Committee of Medical Experts on Air Pollution study set up by the Department of Health, with input from the Department of Transport, is addressing that important question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that, given his experience of health matters, he gives high priority to this aspect of pollution control.
As for powers to control specific episodes of high pollution, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has accepted that we should explore the possibilities and ensure that the appropriate powers are in place, with one caveat: we ought not to consider only how to deal with the rare occasions on which air quality deteriorates badly because of atmospheric conditions—we need long-term measures to improve air quality permanently.

Bus Companies, London

Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the performance of bus companies in London. [23879]

Mr. Norris: The overall quality of bus services in London is continuing to improve.

Ms Hoey: Has the Minister seen the excellent report by the Lambeth public transport group on route No. 133, which is the only direct route through south London to the City? Is he aware that that report refers to high staff turnover and to demoralisation among staff, leading to a decline in service on that route? Does he agree that that is a direct result of a tendering process which is not open and accountable and which leaves the public no opportunity to see the facts of the tender that was won by London General?

Mr. Norris: What I know about that report is that it is produced by the Lambeth public transport group, which is funded by that magnificent organisation, Lambeth borough council. I suspect that few objective observers will be surprised to know that that group sets all the difficulties on route No.133—principally traffic congestion on the A23—at the door of the dastardly robber barons who own the London bus companies. The reality is quite the opposite, but the report is an interesting insight into what the priorities of a Labour Administration might be for bus services: pay the trade union members a great deal more money and all the other problems will go away. That is nonsense.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend and all concerned on the definite improvement in London's bus services, but does he accept that one-person


operated buses sometimes delay traffic enormously while the driver takes the fares of people getting on? Will he bring back the clippies on busy bus routes, and does not he think that that would have other advantages as well?

Mr. Norris: I shall ponder on my hon. Friend's last point, which raises a fascinating prospect. What my hon. Friend says is important and he is quite right to say that one-person operation tends to reduce the speed.

Madam Speaker: Order. I should be glad if the Minister would address the House and particularly the Chair. Too many Ministers turn towards the Member asking the question because they think that that is courteous, but it is not: the courtesy is to address the House and the Chair.

Mr. Norris: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know that you, too, are interested in one-person operated buses and I am happy to follow your direction. I apologise for the discourtesy.
In London about 70 per cent. of fares do not involve cash but travelcards or elderly persons' cards. The way to develop the service is through cashless technology which allows for more rapid entry rather than going back to the inefficient days of two-man operation.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister confirm that, since deregulation, passenger trips in London—where bus services were not deregulated—have scarcely fallen at all, while in all the metropolitan areas which were deregulated passenger trips have fallen by more than 35 per cent.? Will he acknowledge that deregulation has saddled Britain with a bus industry that is costing passengers more, providing a poorer service for those who need it most and using buses which are generally older, less well maintained and more polluting? Staff are disgruntled and worse off, and deregulation has virtually led to the demise of Britain's bus-building industry. When will the Minister admit that deregulation has been a disaster and that the sooner we have re-regulated bus services under a Labour Government the better?

Mr. Norris: Once again, by their words shall they be judged: I am happy to leave any objective observer to think on what the hon. Gentleman has invited me to say. The hon. Gentleman's question proves that he knows nothing about bus services. He does not appreciate the huge difference between the London market and the out-of-London market. It is perfectly straightforward: in London, the inability of those who would otherwise commute by car to find parking spaces determines the consistently high level of bus use, while outside London increasing car ownership has led to less bus use—a feature which is common throughout the European Community. However, there is now clear evidence that the process of deregulation has arrested the rate of decline and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has led to a halving of subsidy, a reduction of a third in operating costs and 20 per cent. more route miles.

Mr. Heald: In assessing the performance of London's buses, will my hon. Friend also look at their environmental performance? Is he aware that Johnson Matthey in my constituency has developed a diesel autocatalyst which is currently being piloted on some of London's buses? Will he see what can be done to spread this excellent initiative across all bus services?

Mr. Norris: I did indeed go to a demonstration of the continuous recircling trap product developed by Johnson Matthey. It illustrates the fact that in respect of diesel emissions, which were thought for a long time to be relatively benign, we now realise that those 10 micron particles are among the most dangerous emissions and we welcome any technical development which allows us to eliminate them from diesel engines.

Railway Rolling Stock

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects the companies set up for the purchase of rolling stock to be able to place firm orders. [23881]

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): No companies have been set up specifically to purchase rolling stock. The purchase of new rolling stock remains a matter for British Rail until the rolling stock leasing companies are sold later this year.

Mr. Gunnell: Is the Minister aware that the Transport Select Committee and BR chairman Bob Reid both recognise that we have the longest hiatus that we have ever had in producing rolling stock and that this year, for the first time since 1948, there has been no budget for new rolling stock? Is that not why jobs are being lost in York, Hunslet and Wakefield and what does the Minister intend to do about it? It is not sufficient to give the pat answers that we have heard today.

Mr. Watts: UK trains currently on order include Networkers for British Rail, mail trains for the Post Office, Heathrow express and channel tunnel trains and new trains for the Jubilee line and the Northern line. Once the rolling stock companies are privatised, of course, they will have access to the private capital markets and will be able to take a longer-term view of investment needs.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the experience of the bus industry demonstrates clearly that when the private sector becomes involved it invests very heavily in new modern rolling stock? Indeed, in one instance, it has invested more in new vehicles in one year than had been previously been invested in 10 years. That surely demonstrates that the same will happen with the railways because new vehicles cost less to maintain.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right, although I should remind him that British Rail has invested more than £4 billion in new rolling stock since 1979 and that in the past 10 years more than 4,000 new vehicles and locomotives have been brought into use.

Roads Programme

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the Government's review of the roads programme, following the report of the standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment. [23882]

Mr. Watts: All schemes in the planning stages are being reassessed at their next key decision stage.

Mr. Mudie: The Minister will be aware that the House welcomed the sensible conclusions of the advisory committee that continuous road building was no answer to congestion. How long will it be before the Department


brings forward a serious response to the problem, particularly the pollution and environmental aspects of road building?

Mr. Watts: Last December my Department accepted the key recommendations of the SACTRA report. As I have said, we are assessing all schemes in their planning stages for the possibility of traffic generation. The committee did not conclude, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that road building leads only to congestion.

Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that while it may be fashionable in some quarters not to approve of new road schemes there are two improvement schemes for the A38 trunk road in south-east Cornwall which are not only needed but for which there is unanimous support? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that where people want such schemes, that fact will be taken into consideration?

Mr. Watts: It has become clear to me since I have had my present job that there are many more road schemes throughout the country which are welcome both to my hon. Friends and, indeed, to Opposition Members and their constituents than there are schemes which cause them concern.

Private Vehicles, London

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to limit the use of private vehicles in central London. [23883]

Mr. Norris: Our approach is already laid down in the document, "Traffic Management and Parking Guidance", which we issued in 1993.

Mr. Banks: That simply is not good enough. Does the Minister share the concern of the Opposition—and, I am sure, that of Tory Members—about the appalling air quality in London? There is congestion in the streets, with clapped-out old buses, lorries and cars spewing filth into the atmosphere which we then have to breathe. What are the Government doing about that? Where are the monitoring stations? What is being done about checking the emissions from filthy cars, lorries and buses and taking them off the roads? Is the Minister waiting for people to start dropping dead in the streets of London before he acts?

Mr. Norris: If the hon. Gentleman wants to tackle the issues, he must accept that campaigning on the slogan that one is about to restrict the use of private cars in London is unlikely to make him attractive even to the electors of Newham. The reality is that we have to ensure that economic and social activity continues while we come to terms with the very real issues of air quality and congestion that he raises which, as is widely accepted not only by the political parties but by the pressure groups, need to be resolved by using the carrot and the stick, by ensuring the accessibility of public transport and a number of measures to manage traffic demand in a way that improves air quality and the quality of life. I do not believe that arbitrary bans on the number of vehicles coming into major cities is either right or acceptable.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: How about closing the House of Commons car park for an experimental period, giving each hon. Member a week's bus pass and putting a bus lane up and down Whitehall?

Mr. Norris: Someone told me that when my hon. Friend was a Northern Ireland Minister he once jumped

out of his ministerial car to ask a couple of taxi drivers to put on their seat belts. That same brave attitude towards policy formulation perhaps lies behind his offer today, which I will leave on the table for hon. Members to consider.

Mr. Corbyn: Would the Minister consider a number of proposals, such as making parts of central London entirely car free and tackling the questions of tax relief for business motoring in and out of the centre of London, car parking in central London and a subsidy for public transport so that people are encouraged to use it rather than facing the current exorbitant fares?

Mr. Norris: Subject to the fact that there is already a substantial subsidy for public transport—the largest that there has ever been—to assist operations such as London Underground and London Buses, it might surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that my answer to his question is yes. All the matters that he raises need to be properly explored; I only wish that he would put some pressure on his Front-Bench colleagues to start talking seriously about them rather than hiding behind a great mountain of waffle.

Network SouthEast

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next visit Network SouthEast. [23884]

Mr. Watts: As part of the Government's plans for privatisation, Network SouthEast was reorganised into 12 separate train operating units on 1 April 1994. I visited the London-Tilbury-Southend train operating unit last Thursday.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that rail travel in south-east Essex, especially on the Fenchurch Street line that he visited, has never been rosier following the £150 million investment in resignalling that was completed last year and in view of the 25 replacement trains coming next year and the new management and worker ethos which is bringing so many benefits? Does he agree that since 1948, when it was nationalised, the line has suffered and failed? What hope can he bring to my constituents that, after franchising, the line will never be renationalised?

Mr. Watts: I am sure that none of my hon. Friend's constituents would want the line renationalised once they have tasted the benefits of privatisation. On my visit, I, like my hon. Friend, was impressed by the benefits that will come to his constituents from the investment in the new signalling and other management improvements introduced into LTS Rail.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister assure commuters on the London-Tilbury-Southend line that, following franchising, there will always be as many trains as there are under the current timetable and that all the stations and the Tilbury loop will be maintained?

Mr. Watts: As the hon. Gentleman knows, passenger service requirements will protect every station and route, including the LTS line. He will also know that PSRs are not timetables. He will be aware, however, that far from looking to reduce the services provided, the management of LTS Rail is looking for opportunities to develop them further.

Mr. Gale: When my hon. Friend next meets Network SouthEast, will he ask for reassurance that the recent


sound bite offered to Meridian Television by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) concerning Networker trains was wholly fallacious? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Networker trains ordered for the coast line are on schedule and will be in service by the end of the year and that the remaining trains are out to tender? Is that not very good news for Kent commuters?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will be aware that there is a further invitation to tender for 44 Networker train sets. Those tenders are due to be returned by the end of this week.

Rail Franchising

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in the franchising of rail services. [23885]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): On 17 May the franchising director issued invitations to tender for the first three franchises. He expects to issue invitations to tender in respect of five further franchises later in the year.

Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will know that the nationalised British Rail has a very warm place in the heart of the British nation. For decades it has been the butt of jokes about leaves on the line resulting in train cancellations, or trains not running due to staff shortages despite considerable unemployment. Moreover, the record of the nationalised British Rail has been, and clearly still is, close to the heart of the Labour party. Does my right hon. Friend agree that once privatisation comes and the British people see proper private sector companies bringing about improvements—such as those brought about by British Airways and by long-distance bus services—they will never again want a return to nationalisation and the Labour party will then claim that privatisation was all its own idea in the first place?

Dr. Mawhinney: It would be difficult for the Labour party to make such a claim. However, I agree that the injection of private finance and investment decisions, private management skills and the private sector's well-known sensitivity to what the customer actually wants will produce, over time, a better railway which is more focused on bringing benefits to the passengers. I assume that that will be welcomed across the House.

Mr. Snape: If artificially holding down fares in the newly privatised sectors of British Rail will bring about greater passenger use of the railways, why have the Government been doing exactly the opposite for the past 16 years?

Dr. Mawhinney: I hope that the House has noted the hon. Gentleman's antagonistic reaction to passengers benefiting from the unique benefits which will flow, for the first time, from the railways moving from the public sector to the private sector. I understand that Labour Members have difficulty in getting their minds around the concept that great benefits will flow from privatisation. Even ignoring the history of every other privatisation since 1979, they should accept that it is from the very act of privatisation that benefits will flow, and that those benefits should be shared by the passengers. That is our view, but we note that it is not the view of the Labour party.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend think that the franchisees in the new railway sector will attract more customers if they can achieve the right balance between security at their station car parks and the charges that they make to park there? Should not the name of the game be getting more people to travel on the railways in the sure knowledge that their cars will be safe?

Dr. Mawhinney: I share that perception with my hon. Friend. I think that I am right in saying that in those car parks where British Rail has installed an element of security the phenomenon referred to by my hon. Friend has already been observed.

Mr. Tyler: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under the instructions issued to the franchising director by his predecessor in accordance with section 5 of the Railways Act 1993—that the service specifications for loss-making lines and services must be included in criteria which are put to the Secretary of State, agreed by him and then published—have been carried out and will be completed, including publication?

Dr. Mawhinney: I can confirm that all the arrangements which are duly in place for moving forward the privatisation of the railways are being carried through.

Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a level of public subsidy has always been part of the Government's privatisation plans and that it is more than likely that, with a cap on fares charged to passengers, revenues will increase due to greater use?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I told the House in the debate last Wednesday, subsidy was always part of the privatisation process, as was made clear in the White Paper, in the debates on legislation and by Ministers subsequently. Conservative Members recognise that subsidies are very important. Only the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is raising questions about the continuation of subsidy in the unlikely event of a Labour Government.

Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in the bidding for the channel tunnel rail link, he permitted a bid to proceed from Eurorail which broke the terms of the tender document? Is he aware that the rules of the process, which were published last year, state unequivocally that all tenderers must submit a document on the basis of the reference specifications; yet Eurorail failed to do so and there was no mention in the rules of any tenderer being allowed to submit a fresh bid. Is it not clear that the Secretary of State bent the rules by allowing Eurorail to make a fresh bid because the consortium is led by one of the Government's friends and associates, Lord Parkinson?

Dr. Mawhinney: First, that has nothing to do with the question before the House. Secondly, as I should have thought the hon. Gentleman understood, all those documents are commercial in confidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I hope that the Hansard will record that surge of contempt for legal contracts signed by those who have a desire to take part in a channel tunnel rail link project. Unlike the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I am not going to flirt with the law in that regard.

Rail Privatisation

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the privatisation of British Rail. [23886]

Dr. Mawhinney: Privatisation is moving forward. Most of the restructuring of British Rail is now complete. During the next 18 months or so, most of the railway will be transferred to the private sector.

Mr. Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the time-keeping problems on the south Kent coastal route, the quality of service and the lack of up-to-date rolling stock will be dealt with by privatisation? My constituents are fed up with the public sector British Rail and want a privatised British Rail.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right that passengers are looking for maximum benefit from the railway services to which they contribute through their taxes and fares and on which so many are dependent. I am greatly encouraged by his support to move the railway into the private sector as quickly as possible and, on behalf of his constituents and those of other right hon and hon. Members, I will do just that.

Mr. Dalyell: Even though we have just been told that it is not the Secretary of State's style to flirt with the law, how does he get his mind around the considered judgment of senior judges of the Court of Session in Edinburgh that what happened in relation to the London to Fort William sleeper service was illegal? What are the Government's reflections on that?

Dr. Mawhinney: Were I even tempted to answer that question, Madam Speaker, I think that you would remind me that the matter is sub judice.

Mr. Garnier: Has my right hon. Friend had the misfortune to see the press release issued by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on passenger service requirements? Does he agree that that press release was no more than black scaremongering propaganda and will he confirm that his Department and the Government fully confirm that the rail network is a public service and that it will continue, not only for the use of people throughout the United Kingdom, but particularly for my constituents in Market Harborough?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. and learned Friend is right. I have seen that press release, just as I have heard about a press release about Peterborough, issued by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), in which she even got the date wrong. Last Wednesday week, Opposition Front-Bench Members issued a press statement which said that a new fares structure for the railways had been postponed indefinitely. It was announced the following Monday. They said that new passenger service requirements for four further lines had been postponed indefinitely; they were announced last Tuesday. They also said that the tendering arrangements for the first three franchises had been postponed indefinitely; they were announced last Wednesday. Given that record of accuracy, my hon. and learned Friend can reassure his constituents that, as everyone on this side of the House already knows, they should not be even remotely worried by what the Opposition Front Bench says.

Dr. Marek: Is the Secretary of State aware that the travelling public would be much more likely to have a better deal if British Rail was allowed to bid for the first three franchises? The fact that it is not allowed to do so shows that the Government and the franchising director care not one whit for the benefits that accrue to the travelling public.

Dr. Mawhinney: The declamation does not constitute evidence. The franchising director has taken a view, and I am very comfortable with it.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as privatisation proceeds, as the travelling public and our constituents want, it is crucial that all those in the private sector who wish to run trains should have the fullest opportunity to develop their services? Will he look carefully at the proposals by Statesman Railways to re-introduce the direct through service to Blackpool, which was withdrawn by nationalised British Rail?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right that passengers will want to see the maximum benefit to them arising from the privatisation process. He will understand that those interested in making a bid will be able to do so in the normal and appropriate way.

Mr. Llwyd: The Secretary of State has given assurances that fares will be pegged in line with inflation for the next four years. What assurances has he had from the Treasury? If the cash is not there, will not it mean a cut in services?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last week, but I have made it clear on a number of occasions, not least in last Wednesday's debate, that the Government will provide the appropriate and necessary subsidy, including that arising from the fares policy.

Aston Clinton Bypass

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his inspector's report on the A41 Aston Clinton bypass. [23887]

Mr. Watts: The inspector's report will be published concurrently with the decision following last November's public inquiry. The announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Lidington: May I remind my hon. Friend that that bypass was first proposed by his predecessor in 1937 and that my constituents in Aston Clinton have had to put up with vastly increased volumes of traffic through their village since his Department completed the Hemel Hempstead and Berkhamsted bypasses? May I urge him and his officials in the Highways Agency to give that project the highest possible priority?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend reinforces the point that I made earlier about the popularity of many schemes in the programme.

Manchester Airport

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers used Manchester airport in 1994. [23888]

Dr. Mawhinney: The number is 14.3 million.

Mr. Evans: Manchester airport is one of the finest regional airports in Europe. Its popularity can be evidenced by that figure, which is due to grow to 15.5 million by next year. I was extremely gratified when my right hon. Friend announced the open skies policy with the United States of America last year as it is good news for regional airports. Will he take the liberalising spirit a step further and extend the open skies policy to the rest of the world so that more aircraft can use airports like Manchester?

Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend that Manchester is a very fine airport and that it has a bright future. Like him, I am pleased that Continental has announced its plans to initiate a flight between Newark and Manchester, arising out of the liberalisation process that I announced last October. That will be good news for passengers and for the Greater Manchester region and its economy. I shall certainly consider carefully any other suggestions that are made to me in that regard.

Mr. O'Hara: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to the expected increase in traffic through Manchester airport in the next decade. Manchester airport seeks a second runway to cater for that capacity. It pitches the capacity of its present runway at 18 million whereas Gatwick copes with 24 million passengers on one runway.
Would not it make more sense, instead of building a new runway in Manchester where there will be at most 12 million or possibly only 6 million extra passengers, to develop Liverpool airport, where there is already a runway that can cope with 12 million passengers, and where meteorological conditions and safety conditions are better? There is less environmental impact, and 20 per cent. of the people who use Manchester airport find it as convenient, or more convenient, to go to Liverpool.

Dr. Mawhinney: At least the hon. Gentleman's constituents will recognise that he is doing the job that he was sent to this place to do on their behalf. The House will understand that public inquiries are in place relating to both Manchester airport and Liverpool airport, and I am one of only two people in the country who cannot comment about either at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the working relationship between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. [23908]

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): It is of fundamental importance to the Crown Prosecution Service that there should be close co-operation between each of its 104 branches and the local police, usually via their crime support units, and that is becoming increasingly effective.

Mr. Hendry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the relationship between the CPS and the police depends on openness and respect for the truth? Does he agree that, when the shadow Home Secretary makes a speech littered with half-truths and inaccuracies to the Police Federation conference, as he did last week, it cannot help that relationship? Is not that a disgrace, and should he not withdraw them at the earliest opportunity?

The Attorney-General: I must agree with my hon. Friend and deplore the thoroughly inaccurate, irresponsible and misleading speech made to the Police Federation by the shadow Home Secretary last week. I was astonished that, among other things, he sought to wind up his audience by criticising a judicial sentencing decision, and then failed to draw to the attention of that audience the fact that that sentence had been properly referred, as unduly lenient, to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. John Morris: The Attorney-General knows that I supported the setting up of the CPS and have always been anxious that both the CPS and the Serious Fraud Office are seen to be working well, but does he accept that there are continuing anxieties on the part of judges, lawyers and the police, and is not the disclosure by the Sunday Times of the CPS employing solicitors who have been disciplined for deliberately or recklessly deceiving clients or incompetence, a matter of grave concern?
In the proposed reorganisation of police force and local authority areas, has the assurance given by the then Home Secretary, in introducing the Prosecution of Offences Bill in 1985, that there would be chief Crown prosecutors for the most part covering a police area, been thrown overboard?
I suggested a review after five years to discover whether we had got it right. Would it not be valuable now to have an independent review to examine the effectiveness of the CPS?

The Attorney-General: I would be inclined to acquit the right hon. and learned Gentleman of any part in the speech by his hon. Friend last week, but I doubt whether it would have been made had there been close liaison between them. The speech was very unwise in suggesting that the service should be pulled—

Mr. Olner: Outrageous.

Madam Speaker: Order. The question that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman has asked the Minister must be answered.

The Attorney-General: The speech was very unwise—[Interruption.] I am answering the question if hon. Members will listen. The speech was unwise to suggest that the service should be pulled up by the roots. As I made clear the following day, there are 104 branches in the Crown Prosecution Service, and they seek to keep a close liaison with their local police. It is important to ensure effective liaison over discontinuances, which have been coming down over the past two years.
To answer the second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, the CPS is careful about who it employs. The picture given in the recent press article was by no means complete. The CPS would certainly not keep on anyone whose conduct did not merit him being employed by a public service.

Mr. Jessel: On the role of both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to the War Crimes Act 1991, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in view of the stark enormity of the murder of 6 million people in concentration camps, the CPS and the police will not be inhibited by the passage of time?

The Attorney-General: Any prosecution decision in relation to war crimes will be taken on proper principles. But it will have regard to the will of the House as


expressed in the War Crimes Act. This would not cause the mere fact of the passage of 50 years to be taken into account when deciding not to prosecute. I have answered a number of questions in writing recently on the progress of investigations, which are being carried forward with great care.

Incitement to Racial Hatred

Mr. Soley: To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the operation of the law of incitement to racial hatred with particular reference to section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986. [23910]

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The offences created by part III of the Public Order Act 1986, of which section 18 is but one, provide very full powers for investigation, prosecution and punishment of incitement to racial hatred.

Mr. Soley: Will the Attorney-General confirm that he is looking at the additional information that I have sent to him about Mr. Bernard Manning and his comments to the police in Manchester? Will he also confirm that the House passed the amendment, as it was then, to the 1986 Act, as it is now, with the precise intention that the Attorney-General should intervene in cases of racial incitement? Will he also confirm that, in such a case, the Attorney-General has the important duty to intervene and help the police in order to take the necessary prosecution, otherwise we would have passed the Act for no purpose?

The Solicitor-General: I am very surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comment in view of the fact that on 3 May my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in a written reply, invited the hon. Gentleman to send any evidence he had about a criminal offence to the chief officer of police involved. When I inquired this morning whether any such letter had been received, I was notified that none had. In case the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate it, the Attorney-General's role in the Public Order Act is to give consent in appropriate cases; it is the function of the police to investigate.

Mr. Garnier: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that 16 out of 21 applications put to his chambers by the prosecuting authorities under section 18 have been accepted? Will he also confirm that his Department and all prosecuting authorities will do their best to ensure that, if the evidence exists, those who are guilty of offences are prosecuted?

The Solicitor-General: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that there is no lack of will to prosecute. The up-to-date figures in respect of applications under part III of the Public Order Act are as follows: There have been 21 applications, 16 have been granted, four were declined and one is under consideration. The House will be aware that in the everyday experience of the courts, most racially-motivated crime falls into the category of criminal damage, assaults or offences under part I of the Act. Offences under part III of the Act are only a small proportion of the whole.

Mr. Nick Leeson

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Mr. Nick Leeson to be interviewed by the appropriate criminal investigative authorities. [23912]

The Attorney-General: The investigation by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, in conjunction with the City of London police, is not yet concluded and it would be inappropriate at this stage to give details of operational matters.

Mr. MacShane: Is the Attorney-General aware that barely an hour's flight from here sits Mr. Nick Leeson, who lost £1 million to the Queen as well as the savings of many investors and caused a major bank to shut down, and no one has asked him one simple question about the matter? Is the Attorney-General further aware that, given the hangman state in Singapore which is seeking to bring Mr. Leeson to account through its form of justice, many people in this country believe that the lack of interest or concern on the part of the criminal investigation authorities borders on a cover-up?

The Attorney-General: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who claims to have some connections with the City of London, should make such an allegation. The matter is being examined with great care by the Serious Fraud Office and by the authorities in Singapore. The Serious Fraud Office has made an application to the courts in Singapore for detailed information which it requires in order to take forward its investigations. The application was not granted at that stage and the office continues to pursue its inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Kenya

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on multilateral aid to Kenya following recent political developments. [23919]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): There is no direct connection between the levels of support provided by the International Monetary Fund/World bank and political developments. The IMF and World bank have both had recent concerns about some aspects of the economic programme, which they are continuing to discuss with the Government of Kenya.

Sir David Steel: The Minister is surely aware of recent events in Kenya, including the arrest and harassment of Opposition Members of Parliament and the interference with the presses which publish Finance magazine and People Weekly. Will he undertake to consider those matters alongside the economic issues at the Paris Club meeting of donors on 26 July? Will he confirm that the international community cannot be expected to continue to assist Governments which act in that repressive manner?

Mr. Baldry: I agree with the broad thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I know of his long-standing interest in the welfare of Kenya and of course we share his concerns about the deterioration of the political atmosphere in that country in recent months, particularly the arrest of Opposition Members of Parliament and the destruction of the free press.
At the Kenya donors meeting in December last year the United Kingdom delegation made it clear that the future provision of balance of payments aid was subject not only


to continued implementation of economic reform but to continued improvement in the overall political situation and progress in the fight against corruption. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there will be a meeting of Kenya aid donors in July. We will attend, as will the Government of Kenya. The right hon. Gentleman and the House may be assured that there will be some very frank talking at that meeting.

North Africa

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for the provision of aid to countries on the north coast of Africa. [23920]

Mr. Baldry: In the current financial year we propose to provide aid through our bilateral programme to Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. Those countries also receive substantial multilateral aid, in particular through the European Community.

Mr. Janner: Can the Minister please look with special generosity at Morocco, whose people are suffering as a result of a catastrophic harvest and which is a pivot of political stability in a very fragile area?

Mr. Baldry: Morocco receives significant European Community aid and in the past four years EC aid to Morocco has increased by 35 per cent. The hon. Gentleman takes a particular interest in North Africa and Morocco and I think that he knows that we are also keen to help Morocco by promoting trade and allowing it greater access to European Union markets. A mandate for a partnership agreement with Morocco was agreed by the European Community in December 1993. That agreement aims to create a free trade zone with Europe progressively over the next 12 years. I am sure that the whole House wants to see maximum stability in North Africa and to prevent any other countries in that region from sliding into civil war.

Mr. Key: May I encourage my hon. Friend seriously to examine aid to north Africa with our European Union partners? I am convinced that it is in Britain's interest that we should seek to minimise economic migration and the flow of people in north Africa and between north Africa and Europe. One good way of doing that is by investment in jobs, homes and economic prosperity in North Africa to minimise the differences.

Mr. Baldry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We want to promote economic stability and economic growth in north Africa. We can do that through the bilateral aid budget and by ensuring that there is greater access for trade from north Africa into the European Union.

UNESCO

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will review their policy towards membership of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. [23921]

Mr. Baldry: We are continuing to keep the issue under review.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister remind us why Britain withdrew from UNESCO? I remember that at the time it

was an extremely controversial decision and deeply disappointing to all the aid and third world agencies. As the United Nations is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, would it not be an appropriate time to review and rejoin?

Mr. Baldry: It is helpful to remember that we left UNESCO because of its bureaucracy, overspending, mismanagement, inefficiency and political bias. Since we left 10 years ago, there has been some progress, but not enough. It is fair to say that UNESCO is not an aid programme, but a bureaucracy as 75 per cent. of all UNESCO staff are employed in Paris and only 25 per cent. are actually out in the field. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that only 6.6 per cent. of spending by UNESCO can be considered as development aid to developing countries.

Miss Lestor: May I remind the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) did, that it is the 50th anniversary of the United Nations? The Government say with many fine words that they are committed to the United Nations and they are joining the celebrations, but in reality they do the opposite. They recently reduced the contribution to UNICEF and I detect a harder line on UNESCO than previously, when they said that some progress had been made. There is enormous pressure from both sides of the House for Britain to rejoin UNESCO. It is not a party political matter. If the Minister wants to express real support for the United Nations in this anniversary year, he should now cut out all the red tape and announce that we shall rejoin UNESCO at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Baldry: We need no lectures on support for the United Nations. The United Kingdom fully supports the UN and its agencies. We pay in full and promptly, and we support 26 UN agencies, as well as other UN bodies, with funds and programmes. In addition, we are one of the main donors to UN peacekeeping. Recently, we increased our grant to UNICEF and gave it an extra £3.4 million in supplementary funding mostly in response to emergency appeals. The hon. Lady should consider whether it makes any sense at all, in the name of development policies, to give money to an organisation when 75 per cent. of its staff are locked up in Paris and only 6.6 per cent. of its total budget is spent on development aid to developing countries.

Pakistan Cotton Crop

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been given to Pakistan to overcome problems with cotton crop production. [23922]

Mr. Baldry: The ODA, through the Natural Resources Institute, has been assisting the Government of Pakistan since 1985 in identifying ways of improving the control of cotton pests in an environmentally benign manner. Assistance is also being provided by the Asian development bank, the European Commission, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World bank and agro-chemical companies.

Mr. Pike: As the Minister knows, for the past two years the cotton crop in Pakistan has been affected by a peculiar virus and has reduced by more than half to less than 6 million bales a year. In Pakistan's own view, it is


a crisis. What help is being given to Pakistan in terms of expertise and finance to overcome that particular problem?

Mr. Baldry: We have an excellent organisation called the Natural Resources Institute, which is funded by the ODA. Through the Natural Resources Institute, we have spent £1 million in recent years on research into cotton pest control in Pakistan. As the hon. Gentleman said, cotton is Pakistan's most important crop. In recent years it has been attacked by viruses, pest infestations and floods, and we have been working extremely hard with the Pakistan Government and with best science in this country to ensure that much of the crop is saved for the benefit of the people of Pakistan.

Rwanda

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is planned by Her Majesty's Government between now and the end of the year for Rwanda. [23924]

Mr. Baldry: Britain has provided £8 million since January for relief and rehabilitation. Over the coming

months that will be used to resettle those displaced from Kibeho, support human rights monitors, and to strengthen the legal sector and the Government's economic policy-making capacity. We are looking at how we might help further.

Mr. Hughes: That answer is welcome. Does the Minister agree that it is a great consolation to the people of Rwanda and of other countries that suffer such huge traumas to know that the United Nations will be on hand when needed to respond quickly, act strongly and continue its presence to ensure that human rights are upheld—which is continuing to be necessary, as the Minister said—and to intervene to prevent any further escalation of inter-tribal violence and warfare?

Mr. Baldry: I agree that all those objectives are desirable, which is why we support the UN fully and pay our subscription on time. As a country, we are contributing more peacekeeping forces to the UN than practically any other country in the world. It is often forgotten that, for example, in Angola at present there are 600 members of the Royal Logistics corps sorting out the food chain. We will continue to support and to work with the UN.

Competitiveness

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): A year ago, the Government published the White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win"—the first comprehensive audit of the United Kingdom's industrial and commercial competitiveness. That White Paper was widely welcomed by business. Today, we publish our second report on competitiveness.
This year's White Paper is designed to report on changes in our performance over the past year, describe the action that the Government have taken to improve United Kingdom competitiveness over that period and set out our plans for further progress, making a number of significant announcements today. The White Paper contains new, more extensive analysis of our competitive position. It looks at the competitiveness of key sectors, regional developments and to the future, as well as reporting on changes in our performance over the past year in each of the main factors of competitiveness that we identified last year.
The White Paper reports in detail on the progress that the Government have made in fulfilling the commitments—more than 300 of them—in the 1994 White Paper. It shows promises kept and action taken. For the future, it contains 70 new initiatives and commits more than £240 million extra, of which £165 million is additional Government expenditure. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is announcing today, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), that he is publishing the report of the technology foresight steering group and the 1995 "Forward Look" of Government-funded science, engineering and technology. My right hon. Friend is also publishing the efficiency scrutiny report on resource management systems in Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer is today publishing a White Paper on public procurement, and when the markets open tomorrow morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will be announcing the Government's conclusions on media ownership issues, followed by a statement to the House in the afternoon.
This White Paper reports good news. Last year, output rose by 4 per cent., manufacturing productivity by more than 4 per cent. and exports by 11 per cent.—increasing our share of world trade. Unemployment fell by 300,000. In the last quarter of the year, investment surged by 8 per cent. and is set to increase still further this year. The balance of payments deficit fell sharply and underlying inflation was at the lowest sustained level for 30 years.
That year-on-year performance is impressive and maintains the turnround in our economic performance started in 1979. But the competitiveness agenda is on-going and long term. Our task is to reverse more than a century of relative decline. Last year's White Paper showed how, during the 1980s, we stopped falling behind the rest of the world. We closed the productivity gap with our main competitors, put strikes into the history books and stabilised the decline in our share of world trade in manufacturing.
Today's White Paper takes the analysis forward. Overall manufacturing productivity is now close to that in Germany and France and continues to catch up the United

States of America and Japan. At the same time, British companies have regained their reputation for first-class, world quality in manufacturing and services.
The United Kingdom economy's competitiveness is nowhere better illustrated than in our ability to attract inward investment. The UK accounts for one third of all inward investment in the European Union. That investment is worth more than £130 billion, and it has created and safeguarded nearly 700,000 jobs since 1979.
Our exports too are a huge success. They reached record levels last year, and the Confederation of British Industry reports that orders are growing at their fastest ever rate. Last year, Ministers led more than 80 trade promotion missions, accompanied by more than 1,000 business people, to more than 50 countries. I am delighted to tell the House that the business men and women who accompanied me to China last week were able to strike deals totalling more than £1 billion.
I said that competitiveness was on-going. The White Paper makes clear our determination to seek continued improvement. We shall seek it in management. We have as many world-class firms as Germany, but we have a higher proportion of poor performers. Among a raft of new measures to help companies—particularly small and medium-sized ones—learn from the experience of the best, the Government will make available nearly £100 million extra through business links for locally designed business development programmes.
On improvement in exports, despite the success that I have just described, only 100,000 of our 2.8 million UK firms export. We can do better. Today, therefore, we are setting a target of introducing 30,000 new exporting firms to foreign markets by the year 2000. To achieve that, my Department will spend nearly £40 million extra on support for exporters over the next four years. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already announced a significant strengthening of Foreign and Commonwealth Office support for commercial work overseas, involving more than 100 new commercial officers, particularly in key, emerging markets.
On improvement in education and training, the Government's reforms—the national curriculum, publication of schools' performance, devolution of management to local level—have already transformed our education system. One third of our young people now go on into higher education. There is, however, no room for complacency. Our aim is for Britain to have the best qualified work force in Europe. The White Paper sets out the steps that we are taking to achieve that aim. Today, the Government are endorsing new targets for achievement in education and training drawn up by the National Advisory Council for Education Training and Targets. Those set new, challenging standards. To ensure that we meet them, we will conduct a major review of our education and training effort, benchmarking it against our leading competitors and identifying where improvement is necessary.
On improvement in innovation, we match the best in inventiveness but not in bringing products to market. Some of the best ideas are born here. We must ensure that more are exploited here. To help, the Government will spend an extra £70 million over four years to support innovation and technology.
In addition, today's report on the technology foresight programme identifies sectors that we need to develop to stay in the top league of industrial nations. The


Government's initial response is given in this year's "Forward Look". Foresight will influence spending priorities in Government and the universities. The Government will also encourage industry to respond through a foresight challenge, which will provide £80 million—half from industry, half from Government—for collaborative projects over the next three years,
British businesses have already benefited from the huge structural reforms undertaken by the Government since 1979. We shall build on our programme of radical reform: Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear are to be privatised; the gas supply industry is to be liberalised; and today, I am announcing more than 100 deregulatory proposals on which we shall take early action and new measures to make enforcement procedures more business friendly. In terms of regulations alone, more than 1,000 have now been identified for amendment or repeal.
Today's White Paper adds up to a comprehensive agenda for action: action that will help business extend its growing success, action to improve the support that Government can give to the wealth-creating sector, action to equip our companies with the skills, resources and entrepreneurial drive to challenge the best in the world in the century ahead. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: We thank the President for making a statement in advance of a wider launch of the White Paper.
We recognise that Britain must survive and prosper in an increasingly competitive global market. There can be no protected Britain and no Fortress Europe. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the essentials for success in that market are much better and more sustained investment in skills, education and training, much better support for technological innovation and much longer-term investment in our manufacturing base? Although the modest announcement that he has made is welcome, in several respects it makes good only the planned reductions in spending which his Department announced in its annual statement for the year. There is little new Government money in what the right hon. Gentleman had to say.
Even allowing for two years of relatively successful growth, the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends will have to do much more to make up for 16 years of devastation of our industrial base. Contrary to what he said, our position has not improved relative to 1979. Manufacturing investment has become worse. Our position in respect of trade and manufactured goods is worse and training now is worse than in 1979. Perhaps we can give a modest welcome to the right hon. Gentleman's belated recognition, after 16 years in office, that some form of industrial strategy is necessary for us to compete in a global market.
The right hon. Gentleman said that his White Paper of a year ago was widely welcomed by industry. We were all reminded by the Director-General of the CBI today in the Financial Times that that was far from the truth. The director-general said that industry gave last year's White Paper two out of 10—hardly widely welcoming. The reality is that again many searching questions will be asked by those in industry and commerce about today's statement.
What happened to the much-vaunted industrial financial initiative that the right hon. Gentleman announced at about this stage last year? We all know that

it was supposed to be directed to short-termism and the amount of money paid in dividends. That initiative was pole-axed by Lord Hanson. The right hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who was then a member of the Treasury team, was moved to the Department of National Heritage and the idea was quietly shelved.
When will the President recognise that unit labour costs matter, not wage rates, when it comes to increasing our productivity and competitiveness? When will he and his right hon. Friends recognise that cutting the training budget by one quarter is not the way to tackle the problem? Reducing training places for work by 55,000 this year over last year is not the way to tackle the problem. Having a training programme in which 50 per cent. of youth trainees achieve no qualifications is not the way to tackle the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his recent trip to China. We welcome his endeavours. I remind him that those endeavours are certainly needed because in 1979 we had a balance of trade surplus with China whereas last year we had a deficit of £800 million. That is a measure of what his policies have done to our trade with the People's Republic of China.
The fact is that, far from making ground, Britain is falling behind our international competitors. Growth, since 1979, at 1.6 per cent. is the worst performance in the Group of Seven. Unemployment remains persistently high. Britain has lower productivity than any of our main competitors; lower skills, worse capital equipment and depressed investment. It is no wonder that our competitive position is so awful compared with Japan, China, the United States and others.
As the right hon. Gentleman talked about reducing burdens and getting rid of regulations, perhaps he will tell the House how many of the 1,000 regulations that he has identified for scrapping were introduced by his own right hon. and hon. Friends in the past 16 years.
On burdens, what has the right hon. Gentleman to say to industry and commerce about the record levels of taxation that the Government have introduced, despite all their election promises? Last year, he produced a White Paper of some 160 pages. This year his White Paper has an additional 100 pages—like the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt very long on rhetoric and very short on content.
The right hon. Gentleman had something to say about support for industrial innovation, and as he has announced some modern improvement, I welcome that, but the reality is that page 61 of his Department's annual report shows that his planned support for industrial innovation is to decline in real terms. He is just barely making that decline good. Fifteen sector panels on technology foresight have reported. How will his Department build on and back those strategic areas? The reality is, with very little Government effort or support.
All in all, this is yet another attempt at a relaunch by a failed and discredited Conservative Government, by a man who gives all the impression of taking the lead; but the lead that he really wants to take is the job of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister sitting next to him.

Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps the next time that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) responds to a statement, he might find it helpful to read it—a copy was given to him in advance—before he prepares his response.


He will have recognised that all the issues on which he took issue with me were covered comprehensively in my statement.
I do not find it too easy to take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman on matters to do with wage rates and unit costs. I thought that the Labour party was committed to the social contract, to giving back power to trade unions and to introducing a minimum wage. Yet Opposition Members are telling us about unit costs. The Labour party is designing policies that would have one express consequence: to increase the unit costs of British industry. The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not understood, when he runs Britain down in so comprehensive a way—

Dr. Cunningham: I did not do that.

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman says that he did not do that. I heard him use the words "falling behind". That is of an economy that is attracting 40 per cent. of all the inward investment coming into the European Union, an economy with record levels of exports, with the best inflation record for 30 years and with an industrial relations record that we have not seen equalled for 100 years. I do not call that falling behind.
I must say to the cognoscenti of the House, of whom there are many even on the Opposition Benches, that the right hon. Gentleman trespassed a little on the speeches that are now being made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition apparently is telling us—I think he did so only today, and I am told that there is, God help us, another lecture coming tonight—that the old Labour days of tax and spend are over. Yet when I announce £165 million of money, the right hon. Gentleman says that it is very little new money. Just exactly how much would Labour's big money be? What will the leader of the Labour party say about the amount of extra money to which, by implication, the right hon. Member for Copeland refers?
I was fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's references to the comments of the Director-General of the CBI on last year's White Paper. He clearly did not entirely understand what the Director-General had said. He said that the White Paper had been received with "deux points"—I appreciate that my accent may not be all that it should be; there is a limit to the ability even of a Euro-fanatic such as myself to speak French.
I have done some research, and I am told that "deux points" is something to do with a thing called the Eurovision song contest. I understand that the maximum score is 15, so "deux points" is not good news. The problem was, I think, that the Director-General of the CBI thought that the maximum score was "trois points".
The complexities of the translation, given the current exchange rates in France and Britain, may be beyond the right hon. Gentleman's comprehension; but I feel that he should establish whether we are trying to rate the country's performance against a record of serious economic advance or to trivialise it by referring to something to do with the Eurovision song contest. Let us get down to the hard core of the matter. If the Government's track record, economic policy and achievements are as awful as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, why is the leader of the Labour party hawking

himself around the country's industrial and commercial communities trying to pretend that nothing much would change if there were a Labour Government?
The reason is that we have got it right, and the only policies that Labour Members can dream up are intended to bring them as close as possible to us without splitting their party in half.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: The White Paper will provide a welcome opportunity for us to build on the success of the 1994 White Paper in improving understanding of the vital importance of competitiveness to wealth creation in a competitive global economy. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that much work remains to be done? It would help, for example, if the media took more interest in the achievements of British industry and, indeed, showed more understanding. As my right hon. Friend has already demonstrated, there is also much work to be done with Her Majesty's Opposition.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be a widespread welcome for the proposal to benchmark our educational achievements against those of our best competitors? Will he assure us that, when he carries out that exercise, he will have particular regard to what has been achieved in encouraging more of our best and brightest students to undertake courses in science and engineering, thus raising the skill base of our economy?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He himself has played a distinguished part in helping to advance the competitiveness of our export activities in particular. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have heard what he said, and he can be assured that we take the matter extremely seriously.
As for the role of the media, none of us in the House expects the media to do other than criticise when it is appropriate, but a sense of balance is needed. Every time Britain's achievements are disparaged or ignored, it sends a message to the men and women on whose success we all depend. We need a greater recognition and a fairer representation of Britain's achievements by the British media.

Mr. Nick Harvey: Will the President say a little more about investment? He spoke of an improvement in the last quarter, but investment is still not leading recovery here as strongly as it is in our competitor economies, or as strongly as it did after the recession of the 1980s. What proposals has the right hon. Gentleman to promote investment further?

Mr. Heseltine: The overall requirement is to preserve the stability of the macro-economy. However, the hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I was to learn that the latest CBI surveys show encouraging indications for investment. We intend to preserve the economic background that will allow that to continue.

Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the achievement of such a high level of inward investment is very creditable? Does he recall that 16 years ago corporation tax was at 52 per cent., and exchange controls meant that companies had to get permission before being allowed to invest overseas? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there have been substantial improvements in the performance of British industry since those days and that there is still room for improvement in the conduct of business for small companies, particularly in terms of the late payment of debt?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is right. There has been a transformation, and the only people who do not appreciate that are the Opposition. There is no greater indication of that than the decisions by leading German industrialists to invest in this country rather than in their own, let alone the decisions of the Japanese, the Americans and the Koreans, who are increasingly choosing this country as the home base for their European expansion proposals. The record is important and we can be proud of it. In coincidence with the publication of the White Paper, there is a summary document designed to advise people who are in contact with small firms. I hope that all hon. Members will take the opportunity to disseminate the messages in that document. It is designed specifically for small firms.

Mr. Richard Caborn: When the President dealt with last year's White Paper one of the weaknesses that many people criticised related to private financing. The industry finance initiative was set up at that time and it was said that there would be a report on that. First, why has that report not been produced? Secondly, Friday's report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on finance for industry again saw that as a structural weakness and mentioned short-termism. I think that that was accepted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he attended the Select Committee. Paragraphs 52, 53 and 54 of the summary show that that structural weakness has not been addressed. The President has dealt with inward investment. What further financial initiatives indigenous to the UK will the President take, because on this issue the Government have a poor record?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have not responded to the Select Committee report. However, we shall certainly do so with our customary care. A number of proposals are outlined in the White Paper and in the summary document for small firms. For example, one is to use business links to create a chain of advice to help small businesses to gain access to the financial markets. The House will be aware of the changes that we made to permit building societies to operate in that area. We should bear in mind the fact that there are now some 900,000 more small businesses in Britain than there were in 1979 and that they have been able to finance their survival and development within the existing regimes. We are all anxious to try to improve on that, but by and large the problem that affected the small business sector was the recession of the late 1980s.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we regard his statement on competitiveness as good news? We should like to see even more done to help small businesses. One of our main competitors, Germany, has five times as many small and medium manufacturers as Britain. Will he assure the House that his efforts, especially on business links and related schemes, will assist that part of our economy because upon it depends much of our future employment and export prospects?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. The White Paper contains a proposal to co-operate with the leading organisations representing small and medium companies so as to promote a national consultative process. We shall involve those organisations in that so as to draw the views of their members to the attention of

Government. In that way we shall know exactly what are their high priority needs. That process will unfold in the course of the year.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that some of the matters in his statement are in line with the discussions that the Prime Minister had last week with the two main Northern Ireland parties? Is he further aware that business and industry in Northern Ireland will welcome his intention to streamline the fair employment legislation? No one doubts its objectives, but the problem, as some of his right hon. Friends know, is that the legislation imposes a crushing financial burden, mainly on foreign investors in Northern Ireland who have to meet hideous legal costs to defend themselves against frivolous complaints.

Mr. Heseltine: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is fair to say that the initiative of the Prime Minister and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in augmenting the peace process in Northern Ireland has been one of the best bits of news for industry and commerce in Northern Ireland in a generation.

Mr. Tony Marlow: How Euro-fanatic is my right hon. Friend? He has been talking about deregulation and he will be aware that an increasing amount of regulation comes from European institutions, either through qualified majority voting or in areas where we did not think that we had given competence to European institutions. Will my right hon. Friend strive strenuously to return to this House powers which this House should never have lost?

Mr. Heseltine: My reference to Euro-fanaticism was a joke. For the benefit of those who take these matters seriously, I am advised that that means a "plaisanterie", but I could have got that wrong, so that might be another joke.
I understand the purpose behind my hon. Friend's question. The purpose of my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher in the mid-1980s was to create a single market which had rules and it is that which led her to send my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Cockfield as a Commissioner to Brussels to make sure that there were standard rules that everyone would keep to. That undoubtedly caused an enormous process of indigestion when the agenda of 300 items was introduced in the Parliaments of the European Union. That process is now behind us. There is no longer the enormous weight of change that has taken place, but we have to recognise that, as a result of that change, our trade with our partners in the European Union has significantly increased. The opportunities for British industry are very large and they are there partially because there is now a common standard of behaviour.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Have not this Minister and the Government got a cheek to talk about the successes in Britain's industrial trade and base when we consider that in the past 16 years they have shut down nearly every shipyard and closed most of the coal mines? Hardly any steel works can be found and one third of the manufacturing base has been destroyed. About the only people who have made anything out of that are those members of Lloyd's who, we have learned today, have


had £2.75 billion written off their tax payments? That money has been lost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has got a cheek to talk about wonderful Britain under the Tories. They have created more havoc than Hitler did in the second world war.

Mr. Heseltine: If I may paraphrase the party political broadcast, that was new Labour speaking.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement today is particularly welcome because it acknowledges that the prime responsibility for improving industrial competitiveness rests with company management, but that its efforts can be helped or hindered by Government? In that context, is my right hon. Friend aware that I counted seven reports in the 1970s in which the Labour Government acknowledged what we needed to do on education, training and continuing education, with a national curriculum and more further education, and that if they had done anything at all about it, we would now have more maths teachers in our schools and we would not have had the skill-based weaknesses that we have.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to point out that virtually every one of the major changes that have been brought about to the benefit of the United Kingdom economy in the 1980s was forced through the House by the Government in the teeth of the union-dominated attitudes of the Labour party.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Does the President agree with last week's Select Committee report that the level of dividends in this country is too high and that far more of the money should go into R and D and other investment? Why did the Government give up their finance into industry initiative last year—was it just because Lord Hanson called the previous Financial Secretary a socialist or was it because the Government have no intention of doing anything about the problem?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the Government have introduced a range of changes—principally the reduction in corporation tax—to ensure that companies enjoy the use of more of their own money. Those changes enable alternative sources of finance to be made available to small companies and, above all, we have presided over a climate in which there has been a very large increase in the number of small and medium-sized companies. That proves beyond peradventure that our policy of supporting that wealth-creating sector has been working. It is all very well for the Labour party to talk about these matters, but its policy proposals are all designed either to put more costs on or remove more money from the wealth-creating sector.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry greatly welcome the energy and enthusiasm with which he has addressed many of its recommendations and especially his commitment to assist many more small businesses to become exporters? Does he, however, agree that the single most damaging thing that we could do and which would reduce our competitiveness would be to adopt a national minimum wage? Does he therefore share my hope that the recent reported statements of the Leader of

the Opposition that he does not now intend to proceed with a national minimum wage will not be diverted by his trade union bosses?

Mr. Heseltine: I have been abroad and might have missed something, but what I thought the Leader of the Opposition was saying was that he was not going to tell us what the national minimum wage would be until after he became leader of a Government, were that unfortunate event ever to occur. It means that he will do a deal with the trade unions and no one will know what the national minimum wage will be until after he is elected. If he were to be elected, everyone would pay the price in lost jobs, but we shall help the public to understand the risks involved in that deception.

Ms Ann Coffey: As the President will be aware, the enterprise allowance scheme has helped thousands of start-up businesses through financial and counselling support. That scheme was abolished by the Secretary of State for Employment in April this year and the business link scheme, which is based on recharging businesses for businesses, is not going to offer the same financial support. Does he not feel that there will be a gap and that start-up businesses will in future be offered less support than previously?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady raises an important point. In fact, the single regeneration budget led to a bidding process in which this form of support did not attract locally the degree of priority that it had previously enjoyed. However, when the hon. Lady and other hon. Members read the texts, they will find that we have introduced a new support system to fill part of the gap that has occurred.

Mr. Den Dover: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if inward investment and investment in the United Kingdom is to continue to increase, there needs to be more competitiveness in the construction industry? Can he report whether his officials in the deregulation unit have dropped any opposition that they had to the implementation of Sir Michael Latham's proposals?

Mr. Heseltine: We greatly admire the work that Sir Michael has done and welcome the sponsorship role that the Department of the Environment is pursuing in partnership with the construction industry. I shall have a further look at what may or may not be happening in my Department in relation to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The President referred to the Government's so-called successes since 1992. Does he attribute any of those so-called successes to the panic devaluation of September that year?

Mr. Heseltine: As the whole House knows, the history of the past 50 years has been one of a constantly depreciating currency. In the short term, that always gives a relative advantage to the country whose currency depreciates. The problem is that, time and time again, we have thrown away that advantage by pursuing domestic inflationary policies that undid what temporary gain there was. The strength of the Government's position is that we are not prepared to see that happen again.

Mr. Harold Elletson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievements in boosting United Kingdom competitiveness and creating a


sustained export-led growth. Is he aware that one of his Department's initiatives, which has been most successful in that regard, is the export promoters scheme? It has been widely applauded by industry and has significantly boosted UK competitiveness. Will he take this opportunity to thank those companies that have taken part in the scheme and will he ensure that it is extended?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for providing me with such an opportunity. About 100 export promoters are now seconded to the Department and they are helping to create a change of culture in relationships between the public and private sectors, as well as adding to the significant export achievements of this country.

Mr. Ken Eastham: When the President was trotting out the catalogue of improvements in training, output and production, was he aware that only two weeks ago the Select Committee on Employment was told that the budget for training by training and enterprise councils has been reduced from £3 billion to just over £1.5 billion since 1990? Was he further aware that only a few weeks ago the Engineering Employers Federation issued a document showing that engineering production in the north-west is only 24 per cent. of capacity? What sort of successes are those?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that unemployment is falling by 1,000 people a day. Therefore, it is not surprising that public-supported training may not be at the same level as it has been. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Anthony Steen: My right hon. Friend's statement is good news, as every right-thinking person should realise. Will he consider the problem of small businesses that are trading with Europe, which is that although the rules and regulations are rigorously enforced in this country by our officials, they are not rigorously enforced in other European Union countries. The result is that our small firms have on-costs and therefore face more problems in competing. Small firms in other countries do not have those on-costs or the enforcement of rules and regulations.

Mr. Heseltine: I can only ask my hon. Friend to let me have the evidence. I have a range of officials whose task is to examine specific cases, but I have to tell the House that evidence is a great deal harder to obtain than anecdotal suggestions indicate. We will examine every piece of evidence put before us.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The President will be aware that a number of his hon. Friends are concerned about their future employment and their potential retirement. Will he explain what is meant by the section on page 71, which makes it clear that the Government no longer believe that the state will help people in their old age?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must realise that that is fiction.

Mr. Miller: That is what it says.

Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the global market in information technology

and multi-media services is forecast to grow to $1 trillion by the year 2000? Has he considered, in relation to his White Paper, whether British industry will be able to take a leading role in that market? Will he do everything to ensure that as many British jobs as possible are created in that important market?

Mr. Heseltine: One of the success stories of the past few years has been deregulation in that very important area, as a result of which we now have huge investment programmes by both multinationals and a growing number of small and medium-sized British companies. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says.

Mr. George Mudie: The President has rightly drawn our attention to the importance of education and training. As a member of a Cabinet that was told by the Secretary of State for Education that there was insufficient money in this year's budget to fund all teachers, can he specifically tell us how much of the £165 million package will go to education?

Mr. Heseltine: The public expenditure figures for education have already been announced. The specific package that I have announced today relates to programmes in the Department of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend realise how much his statement will be welcomed by exporters throughout the land, with more than 100 initiatives demonstrating that he and his Department are going full steam ahead with fresh ideas? My right hon. Friend mentioned the £40 million extra that he will provide to exporters. Does he realise how important it is for exporters, especially small firms, to attend trade exhibitions abroad? Can he outline whether any of that £40 million is to be used for that purpose?

Mr. Heseltine: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, as part of the package of measures that I announced, we intend to increase the number of missions and trade exhibitions to a record level.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In his opening statement, the President of the Board of Trade referred to Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric. In the debate last Wednesday, two rather different things were said. First, we were told that the headquarters would be coming to Scotland, with all the supposed advantages to Scottish Nuclear. At the end of the debate, however, in answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who was reflecting legitimate constituency interests, we were told that Barnwood need not worry, no one was going to move and that there might be 50 extra positions. Which is it?

Mr. Heseltine: This matter was fully debated in the House last week. I was extremely grateful to the Opposition for providing the opportunity for such an early debate and I was immensely impressed by the scale of the Government's majority in both Divisions.

Mr. John Fraser: It is more than three years since the right hon. Gentleman's Department proposed changes in competition law. When will he do something to resolve the discrepancies between European


and United Kingdom competition law and to make it easier for the victims of anti-competitive behaviour to get an effective remedy?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and it is a matter of finding parliamentary time.

Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency have thrived and become very competitive as a result of Government policies? Is he also aware of their nervousness of pressures from the Opposition to make the Government sign up to the social chapter, as such a move would cripple them and destroy all their hard work?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right and that will become more apparent as the political debate unfolds, especially when it is added to the dangers of the minimum wage.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the President of the Board of Trade confirm that the White Paper states on page 71 that, in old age, people will see no improvement in their living standards from public funds. What does he think that old-age pensioners will think about that provision?

Mr. Heseltine: What the paragraph says, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, is that, if one destroys the wealth-creating process and over-taxes society, it will affect the ability of a society to fund its welfare provisions. That is the context and sense of the observation. It is the most classic extreme of the behaviour of the Opposition to suggest that there is any implication whatsoever that the normal welfare provisions that the Government provide are at risk.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I ask for clarification from the President of the Board of Trade in connection with paragraph 6.5 of the companion booklet entitled, "Helping Smaller Firms", which refers to the preparation of an export development strategy for Scotland. Does he mean the facility to have a distinctive and autonomous Scottish export unit, with its own budget and facilities to make direct contacts overseas?

Mr. Heseltine: Of course, that is the position and it will remain the position.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that it is regrettable that many of the new educational and training standards are still lower than those of our competitor countries? Is not that because the overriding factor that determined the standards was what was attainable rather than what was desirable?

Mr. Heseltine: One of the reasons why we have such education problems is that all the reforms which the Government have introduced have been fought tooth and nail by the Opposition. Every attempt that we have made to extend power to parents, publish a national curriculum and introduce testing of children has been resisted. Once we have introduced those reforms, the Opposition once again admit that they would not change them because they know that we are right and simply lacked the guts to do it themselves.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are considering our productivity record over the past 16 years and lamenting the fact that we may still be behind some of our competitors on productivity, it is worth remembering where we started in 1979: flat on our backs at the end of a period of Labour Government? Will he confirm that, over the past 16 years, we have had the highest growth in productivity of all the G7 nations?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely why White Papers on competitiveness are so valuable: they show the regular annual improvement. We started from a low base. We were behind, but we are catching up. If we go on in that way, the prospect for the country's economy is exciting. The easy way to bring it to an end is not to re-elect a Conservative Government.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose grants to British Aerospace specifically for research and development of wing technology? How does he see the future of the European Airbus Industrie project? Are the jobs of my constituents who work on that project safe?

Mr. Heseltine: The Airbus project is at the heart of the country's industrial aerospace strategy. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear our interest in the future large aircraft project, which will take forward the wing technology in which British Aerospace is the European leader.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Does the President agree that, in the case of British Steel, it would be helpful if the £13 million in share option profits announced today were invested in the company? Page 169 shows that Britain in general would then have a higher level of investment and a dividend level that was not twice that of France, three times that of Germany and nearly six times that of Japan.

Mr. Heseltine: One of the last announcements that I remember from British Steel was of a major expansion at Llanwern. As I travel the world, I am also aware of the contracts which British Steel is winning. The reason why it is winning is that it is now a world-class private sector company.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the President of the Board of Trade now read the document that he has put before the House? Does he accept that page 71 does say that individuals will not be able to look to the state to fund improvements in their living standards in old age? What does the President mean by that statement, which will cause considerable worry to many pensioners throughout the country.

Mr. Heseltine: It will cause no worry unless the Labour party indulge in their scare techniques to frighten people when it is not justified. [Interruption.] I shall tell hon. Members what it says. It says that if the economy is not run properly, as a Labour Government would not run the economy properly, improvements in living standards cannot be offered to people. Even the Labour party should understand that.

Mr. Peter Hain: How is our industry supposed to remain competitive when it is required to produce


punitively higher rates of return—much higher than our competitor countries? What will the President of the Board of Trade do about that?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall go on helping British exporters to secure the highest export level that they have ever had, even with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. How is it that we are doing so well if things are so wrong? There is no answer except that things are not as wrong as the Opposition constantly try to suggest.

Personal Statement

Sir Jerry Wiggin: With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement.
I wish unreservedly to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and to the House for having tabled amendments to a Bill in Standing Committee in his name but without his knowledge or consent.
I act as parliamentary adviser to the British Holiday and Home Parks Association, a fact which is declared in the Register of Members' Interests and of which my hon. Friend is aware. I thought that he would be supportive of the amendments, so I wrote to him, and we spoke the following day. As soon as he informed me that he was not willing to move them, I apologised to him and withdrew the amendments from the Standing Committee's amendment paper. They never came before the Committee. Nevertheless, I repeat my apologies to the House and to my hon. Friend, for an action which I acknowledge was at odds with the proper expectations of the House.
I am aware too that suspicions have been voiced that my motive in tabling the amendments in the name of a colleague was to avoid the declaration of a financial interest that I possess and he does not. I accept that the amendments would have benefited the association for which I act as parliamentary adviser. My purpose in tabling the amendments in the name of a member of the Standing Committee was, however, to improve their chances of being considered, as I was not in a position to move them myself in Committee.
There was no intention to deceive, but I accept that my actions were open to other interpretations and I wish to apologise to the House without reservation for any harm that they may have done to its reputation.

Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make. The House has now heard the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) make an apology for his conduct. We do not debate or comment on such statements, but I make the point that, whatever structures and procedures we have in the House, we cannot legislate for integrity, and individual Members should act in such a manner whereby their integrity is not called into question.
I trust that this is the last distasteful occasion on which the Speaker is obliged to inquire into the conduct of an hon. Member.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: So has he got away with it then?

Points of Order

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is best to resolve minor difficulties without bothering the House or the Speaker, but would you, Madam Speaker, consider that it would be helpful to the House to remind us of the expected courtesies when an hon. Member advises another Member before going into their constituency on a public visit or to make a controversial speech?

Madam Speaker: My postbag is inundated these days with letters from Back Benchers, complaining of other Back Benchers who visit their constituencies without notification. It takes up a great deal of my time to try to resolve those matters. Hon. Members should attempt to resolve them themselves. I think the House knows full well my views on this matter. I cannot enforce them. I merely ask that the consideration and courtesy should be extended to each other which I find lacking these days.

Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. What action can be taken to investigate the press allegations of the widespread practice of questions and amendments being tabled in other Members' names in order to conceal their commercial origins? Surely too many Members of Parliament are now regarded by members of the public as Arthur Daley lookalikes.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may seek to refer this matter to the Committee on Members' Interests, which may wish to pursue the point that he is making.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Wednesday, you told my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that you had received a letter alleging breach of privilege, and you continued:
I am seriously examining the situation and I shall do so with all speed."—[Official Report, 17 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 335.]
I wonder whether you could say whether you intend referring that complaint to the Committee of Privileges now, or at a later date.

Madam Speaker: I did consider the matter with all speed. The House will understand that I had to wait for the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to come back and to see me. That was only natural justice.
I have written to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who sent me the letter alleging a breach of privilege. I have indicated the action that I have taken to him. That letter was sent to me; it is not yet in the public domain. It was an exchange of letters between the hon. Member and myself. If he wishes to put it in the public domain, I have no desire to oppose him on that issue.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It seems an odd state of affairs. A few weeks ago, two Tory Members of Parliament were told that they were going to get 10 days' and 20 days' suspension—

Madam Speaker: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Yes.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would come to the point that is for me to deal with.

Mr. Skinner: I do not understand how, in those two instances and others—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know how to put a point of order if he wants to do so. I shall do my best to respond if the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order. At the moment, he is putting an opinion.

Mr. Skinner: My point of order is this: you, Madam Speaker, have just made a statement to the House. We cannot comment on the fact that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has made a personal statement, but your statement follows on from the fact that it appears that the personal statement will be the end of the matter. The fact that two Tory Members of Parliament were suspended for 10 and 20 days for attempting to take money and not receiving it, seems to contrast with the treatment of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, who is still getting the money.

Madam Speaker: Order. There is nothing to contrast. The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of the House; we do not comment after a personal statement. At this stage in our proceedings and in light of the difficulties that the House is experiencing, I am sure that the House will understand and be supportive if I give four or five lines of my beliefs to the House once in a while.

Mr. Michael Clapham: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. The Daily Mirror this morning published a dossier showing that the Government have wasted £35 billion—ranging from £245 million spent on a Ministry of Defence building to £25,000 which was wasted on the cones hotline. Has a Minister indicated that he or she will come to the House and make a statement on the matter?

Madam Speaker: That is not the case. The hon. Gentleman would have seen it on the annunciator screen at 1 o'clock when the other statements were announced.

Mr. David Winnick: One of the themes in last Thursday's debate on the Nolan report was self-regulation. Are we to take it that self-regulation means, in effect, what we have heard today from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and that will be the end of the affair? May I assure you, Madam Speaker, that many people outside the House will not understand the position.

Madam Speaker: The House must decide for itself what procedures it will adopt. I am a servant of the House and I will follow those procedures.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago you told the House that you had sent a letter to a Member of the House who had raised a matter on a point of privilege. You further kindly informed us that if that hon. Member so wished it, the letter's content could be made public. My understanding until now has been that a matter sent to you alleging breach of privilege is not referred to, either by the person sending it or by you, unless, in your opinion, the matter raised is a matter of privilege, in which case you would make your decision known to the House. It appears that your decision on today's matter is in the hands of the hon. Member and only he can now tell us what you may have decided. If I am incorrect, will you


correct me? If I am correct, is there a precedent for the way in which the matter has been dealt with, which did not include a statement from you?

Madam Speaker: It is not the normal procedure. If the House wishes, I shall certainly give it the information that I have given to the hon. Member as soon as I have a copy of the letter to hand.

Mr. David Hanson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have written to you stating my intention to raise this point of order on the appointment of part-time non-executive members of new health authorities in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales advertised in local papers in my constituency on 11 May for members to be appointed to new health authorities in Wales. The Bill establishing those health authorities in Wales has not yet completed its parliamentary progress. I wonder whether you, Madam Speaker, have a view on whether the Secretary of State for Wales should spend public money on adverts and pre-empt the wishes of the House before legislation has been passed by the House. I would hope that you would uphold the right of the House and that the Secretary of State should not spend public money on advertising positions that the House has yet to authorise.

Madam Speaker: As a result of the constituency Friday, I have not seen the letter from the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). I shall certainly examine it and give the hon. Gentleman a reply.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it open to individual members of the House to refer the actions of other hon. Members to the Committee of Privileges?

Madam Speaker: It is a matter for the House, and a resolution of the House must be obtained.
[Following is the text of Madam Speaker's letter to Mr. Hain:
Dear Peter:
You wrote twice to me on 17 May asking that precedence be given to a Motion to refer to the Privileges Committee the action of Sir Jerry Wiggin in tabling amendments to the Gas Bill in Standing Committee in the name of Sebastian Coe but without his knowledge or agreement.
You will have heard Jerry Wiggin's personal statement this afternoon. It is my view that the statement disposes of this unpleasant matter, and no interests of the House would be served by a reference to the Privileges Committee. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, there is no dispute about the facts. Secondly, it is the practice of the House to accept without further demur the bona fides and candour of a Member who makes a personal statement. That being so, it is hard to see what task the Privileges Committee would be asked to do.
You may of course take on your own account any parliamentary action within our rules of order which you think appropriate, including the tabling of an Early Day Motion.]

Orders of the Day — Child Support Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the Child Support Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses, amendments to Clause 1, amendments to Schedule 1, amendments to Clauses 2 to 6, amendments to Schedule 2, remaining amendments to Clauses, new Schedules and remaining amendments to Schedules.—[Mr. Burt]

New clause 3

CHILD MAINTENANCE DISREGARD (No. 2)

'(1) In section 136(5) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (b), there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(bb) in calculating the income of a person claiming income support, a prescribed amount of any payment or payments of maintenance made or due to be made by—

(i) the claimant's former partner, or the claimant's partner's former partner; or
(ii) the parent of a child who is a member of the claimant's family, except where that parent is the claimant or the claimant's partner,

shall be disregarded;".
(2) At the end of that section, there shall be added the following subsection—
(6) In this section 'partner' shall have the meaning prescribed.".'.—[Mr. Bradley.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Keith Bradley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, whether on the Floor of the House or in Committee, the Labour party has attempted to be constructive. In that spirit, I have moved new clause 3, which would introduce a child maintenance disregard into the legislation.
As I am sure you are aware, Madam Speaker, this is the fourth time that we have tried to insert a child maintenance disregard into the Bill. We first attempted to do so by way of a reasoned amendment to the Second Reading debate, and we tried to introduce it in two different ways in Committee. We are now attempting on Report to introduce the disregard, which we believe is a crucial omission from the legislation.
As we have made three previous attempts to introduce a disregard, I do not intend to range over all the issues involved this afternoon. We have always intended to be constructive in the debates, and I hope that our proposals will at last find favour with the Government. However, I proceed with some trepidation, as I do not know whether the Secretary of State, who is lined up against me in the debate, will be persuaded by the logic of the arguments in support of the disregard.
Under the current arrangements, any maintenance that is paid to the parent with care who is in receipt of income support is deducted pound for pound from that income support. Therefore, the parent with care—normally the mother—and subsequently the children do not receive a single penny from any maintenance payment. Despite all the changes that have been made to the Child Support Act 1991 at various stages through the regulations and through


this legislation, the situation will not alter, and the arrangements whereby income support is reduced pound for pound will remain in place.
However, the situation could be rectified if income support claimants were able to keep a small amount of every maintenance payment, which would be known as the maintenance disregard. We are attempting to establish the principle of such a disregard in new clause 3. If the Government were to accept that principle this afternoon, we would welcome their views about the level at which to set the disregard, which would then be debated subsequently as part of the regulations and the provisions in the Bill.
Such a child maintenance disregard would essentially have two effects. First, the poorest children would gain from maintenance payments. Secondly, the so-called absent parents—I accept that that definition is not satisfactory, but it is the terminology used in the Bill, so I shall use it for the purposes of the debate—would have an incentive to pay, and parents with care would have an incentive to apply for maintenance through the Child Support Agency.
Let me put the proposal in some overall context. According to official statistics, seven out of 10, or 70 per cent., of one-parent families claim income support. In February 1994, 42 per cent. of all claimants having benefit deducted to replace social fund loans were lone parents, and in 1993, 46 per cent. of parents with care on benefit were repaying fuel debts. Those and other official statistics show that lone parents on income support face particular financial hardship. The child maintenance disregard proposed by the Labour party is an attempt to address the problem.
The Government consistently oppose the proposal, because they do not wish to incorporate any work disincentives into the benefit system; hence their proposal in the Bill to introduce a child maintenance bonus instead. However, that proposal is inadequate.
Like the back-to-work bonus in the new jobseeker's allowance, it does not benefit families at the point of real need, but instead promises help, probably in future but perhaps never, as it may take as long as four years of consistent eligibility to reach full entitlement to the new bonus. We believe strongly that split families, with one parent caring for children, need help immediately, not at some future date.
The Government should recognise that many factors are involved in the decision to seek work, particularly when the needs of young children or other responsibilities, such as caring for sick or disabled relatives or friends, have to be taken into account. Those acting in a caring capacity may not be able to seek work. Even if such a person were available for work, there is clearly no guarantee that work would be available.
Throughout our deliberations on the matter, the Government have been unable to provide clear evidence that introducing a maintenance disregard on income support creates a disincentive to work. I should be grateful if they could provide that evidence this afternoon.
However, to allay the Government's fears on that point, it may be possible to run the small weekly disregard alongside the child maintenance bonus in order to help people back to work, thus enabling lone parents on

income support perhaps to take part-time work, and therefore immediately reducing the social security bill and the cost of the disregard, and allowing lone parents to obtain skills and ultimately move into full-time work in the longer term, when their children become less dependent.
In addition, a small disregard provides protection against the complete loss of income support that may be associated with maintenance payments, and other losses, such as free school meals and other benefits, that lead to the classic poverty trap, where someone might end up far worse off through the loss of their total entitlement to income support and insufficient compensation.
It must be stressed that the introduction of such a child maintenance disregard is not the only answer in addressing the enormous problems associated with child poverty, but we believe that it is a clear and proper step in the right direction. The Government, on the other hand, believe that only if lone parents return to work will the problems of poverty really be overcome.
It is interesting to note that, in one of our debates in Committee on that point, there was an exchange of views between my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) and the Minister. When he was asked how many people were lifted off benefit by the proposals so far, the Minister recognised that, despite the massive £9 billion currently paid in support of lone parents, only 8,000 out of 1 million people—or less than 1 per cent.—had been lifted off benefit. That shows that more must be done to effect the changes that the Government intend.
4.45 pm
The Opposition are clear that it is not enough to look only at in-work benefits. We have to consider the reality for lone parents who are out of work, their availability for benefit, and the amount of money they should be given to ensure proper care for their children. Many organisations, such as the Child Poverty Action Group, the citizens advice bureaux and many others representing lone parents and single people living in poverty, identified that the Government's approach is far too simplistic, and that we cannot look at work as the only way out of poverty.
There are many reasons why it may not be possible to obtain paid employment. Lone parents with young children may feel it more appropriate to remain at home to care for their children, particularly in their early years.
By refusing to accept the need for a small maintenance disregard, the Government are perpetuating the anomaly whereby children of lone parents who cannot take employment do not gain from the payment of child maintenance. According to the Child Support Agency's own statistics, they represent not only the great majority of CSA clients, but the poorest of those clients.
In Committee, the Government claimed that the welfare of the child was at the heart of the legislation. If that is the case, they would surely wish to accept new clause 3. It would give more money to the children of parents with care; it would act as an incentive to co-operate with the agency; it would provide an incentive for so-called absent parents to pay maintenance; and it would help restore public confidence in the agency by showing people on income support that the Treasury was not the only gainer and that, crucially, the children would also gain, as was clearly envisaged by the Government's White Paper entitled "Children Come First".
I hope that, even at this late stage in our deliberations, the Government will accept that there is clear merit in introducing the child maintenance disregard. If they accept that, they will clearly wish to add new clause 3 to the Bill.

Ms Mildred Gordon: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has said. Lone parents with care represent the majority of those on income support, and nothing in the Bill will give immediate help to that group of parents.
All the organisations that support lone parents—those that have attacked the Bill as well as those that feel that the Child Support Agency can do something—are united in asking for a disregard. As has been said, lone parents on income support are often deeply in debt, with rent arrears, debts for utilities and debts for the repayment of social fund loans. They need help now to stop them going under.
Organisations that support lone parents report that they are unable to give their children adequate diets, and that mothers in particular often go hungry, damaging their health and that of their children. Those parents may never be able to return to work successfully, even when their children are of school age, because they will have got into such difficulties. If they are not helped now, the Bill will postpone long-term solutions, not provide them.
The maintenance bonus, which will take some years to accrue fully, could be paid in addition to a disregard. I see no contradiction. The immediate need to alleviate child poverty remains. The Government argue that the way to get lone parents off income support is to make them all go out to work, usually in low-paid jobs—but no paid work is available in many areas.
Employers are often prejudiced against mothers with small children, thinking that their home responsibilities will prevent them from giving full attention to their job. Women often have multiple responsibilities, such as caring for aged or disabled parents, relatives or neighbours. Mothers often do not want to leave children under five years of age. The Government always claim to favour choice, so they should give women the choice whether to leave their children under five to do low-paid jobs or to look after their children themselves.
I have always advocated a nursery place for every child that can benefit from one, but not every child will do so. When I collected my own son from a nursery all day for the first time, I asked him whether he liked it. He said, "It was very nice, but I don't want to go every day." I respected the fact that he was not ready, at the age of three, to leave his mother, be dragged out come rain or shine, and be left with strangers all day.
When my son reached school age, I left secondary teaching to teach in a primary school. It always worried me, when the new intake arrived, to hear some children screaming for weeks on end, making themselves sick. When teachers said that such children had settled down, I often felt that they had given up in despair, and that really they were not ready to be separated from their mothers if they were to grow up as secure, stable individuals. It is wrong to drive all mothers out to work and not give them the chance to enjoy decent living standards while looking after their young children at home.
One third of our children live in households having less than half the average income. If the Child Support Act 1991 and the Bill are to have any effect, they must address, and do something positive to alleviate, child

poverty. If the Government ensured that, the public would not think that they were totally uncaring, and huge crowds of angry people would not come to see us, write to us and attend meetings throughout the country because they feel that they are being conned and that the Government do not care about child welfare.
Improving the legislation would have a positive effect on the non-resident fathers, who we want to provide support for their children. Although there may be a few rascals, most fathers care about their children. If they knew that the mothers would enjoy some benefit and be able to raise their income above the level of income support, they would be more eager to pay. For all those reasons, I ask the Government to think again, and to include in the Bill a disregard for parents with care on income support.

Mr. Stephen Timms: All of us are aware of the enormous problems caused by child support legislation, and many believe that the changes that we are now considering offer the last chance to get the system right and in a form that will be defensible, widely supported and able to function properly. I had hoped and expected that there would be serious scrutiny of the proposals in Committee and an attempt to reach an all-party consensus, so that all hon. Members could have confidence in a supportable way forward.
I am a relatively new Member of the House, so perhaps I was hoping for more than was possible, but no such all-party consensus emerged. Not one speech in Committee was made by a Conservative Back Bencher. Conservative Members made four brief interventions, but that was the sum total of their contribution. I note that those hon. Members are not present in the Chamber.
I am extremely puzzled that so little interest was shown by Conservative Members, that they remain unconcerned about getting the changes right, and that they have failed to display a give-and-take approach that might have led to changes in which we could all have confidence. Not one substantive Opposition amendment has been accepted by the Government. We have before us only the changes that the Government first thought of, which were whipped through the Committee without the serious scrutiny that I had anticipated.
One major reason for the anger surrounding the legislation is that, in many cases, not a penny of the maintenance paid goes to the children who are intended to be the beneficiaries of the child support regime. As 80 per cent. of the agency's caseload is parents with care who are on income support, they account for a high proportion of the total.
The child maintenance bonus offers some prospect of eventually benefiting the children involved, but that payment will not be made immediately. The bonus will anyway be capped and have a fixed maximum value, and many parents with care will never be in a position to receive it.
Despite the changes made by the Bill, we will end up with a child support regime that remains unsupportable and that will continue to provoke immense fury among the people affected by it. The fact that none of the payments will benefit most of the children involved is a major part of the regime's unacceptability. I hope that the Government will accept the new clause, which would be a big step towards creating a defensible system, which all of us want to achieve.

5 pm

Ms Liz Lynne: I shall not speak on all the groups of amendments, not out of any particular consideration to right hon. and hon. Members—even though, of course, I have that consideration—or out of any satisfaction with the Bill, which is a poor measure and falls far short of what we would wish to be enacted, but because I do not believe that the Government will move on any of the amendments. It is a waste of time for all of us to sit here and try to make the Government see some sense. I should like the wholesale scrapping of the Child Support Act 1991, but, unfortunately, we are not debating that today.
Parents with care will have their benefit clawed back by the Government, pound for pound. That hardly seems fair or just. The case has been well aired and well argued both on Second Reading and in Committee, so I shall not detain the House for long. I should like to point out, however, that some inconsistency exists between what the Minister has been saying and his position. I heard him say that he deplored children of lone parents living in poverty. The new clause would help to get those children out of that poverty, and they form the bulk of the people we dealt with in the Child Support Act.
The new clause would not do a great deal—that would depend on how we set the maintenance disregard—but it would help. To a certain extent, lone parents and their children would be helped out of poverty
Over and again, the Minister says that he wants to get those parents back to work, which seems to be his argument against granting a maintenance disregard. We shall find out whether that is the case when we debate child care costs later this evening. If he accepts the proposal, perhaps I will believe him, but I doubt that he will. He certainly did not accept it in Committee.
We must realise that some lone parents cannot find work. The Minister knows that other ways exist of getting people out of poverty apart from making them go back into work. A maintenance disregard is one of those ways. If a lone parent wants work and finds it, that is great. No one is against that; everyone would support it. In a way, the maintenance bonus will help them to achieve that, but it does not go far enough.
We must ensure that lone parents and their children are not suffering too much. Therefore, we also need the maintenance disregard. If parents without care felt that their children were benefiting, that would encourage them to co-operate with the Child Support Agency law. I am totally opposed to the Act, but I know that the Government will not move on it, so we must find some way of making it just a little better.
I have not heard the Minister or anyone else advance any convincing arguments against a maintenance disregard. I do not know whether he will suddenly come up with some convincing arguments today, but I doubt it. The proposal would also encourage parents with care to co-operate as they would feel that their children were going to benefit and they know that when income support goes, passported benefit and free school meals go. The maintenance disregard would help to offset that clawback of money.
Voluntary organisations and the Law Society want the new clause to go through. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will accept it. They must ask themselves why all these people want the maintenance disregard, and why everyone recognises the reasons for

it except the Government Front-Bench team. The Child Poverty Action Group, for instance, points out that the maintenance bonus is one of the few things proposed to help lone parents with children.
Even though the White Paper says that children come first—and we have said that over and again in Committee—they do not come first in the Bill or the Child Support Act. The Treasury comes first. The Government do not really want to put children first. If they did, they would accept the new clause. The Minister and the Secretary of State can prove that they want children to come first merely by accepting the new clause now.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As always, I promise to be brief, but I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. I have long supported child support legislation, but I was always critical of existing legislation, and, indeed, of this Bill. I support new clause 3 and the comments of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne).
I have a number of concerns about the legislation and the way in which it is implemented. What deeply concerns me is the apparent dilatoriness of officials in Falkirk Child Support Agency office, and the often off-hand way in which they treat my constituents.
On Friday evening, a young woman came to see me at my surgery. She is precisely caught up in the circumstances that the new clause seeks to deal with. She has had little or no help from the Falkirk office in more than a year. I intervened on her behalf more than a year ago.
That decent, honourable, poor woman—and she is a poor woman—is living in abject poverty. On Friday evening, she came back to my surgery to complain about what I have just called the apparent dilatoriness of the officials in Falkirk. I would happily bring the details of that case to the Minister's attention, because I know that he will pursue the matter with Miss Chant and her officials.
That young woman is seeking to bring up a child in a rough, tough part of Greenock. She is having an enormously difficult time of it, and she would be helped by better and more courteous assistance from the Falkirk office. She is in difficult circumstances, and, like many others, she would benefit from such support.
I have yet to meet a constituent who, under the extant legislation, is defined as an absent parent and seeks to avoid his obligations to his child or children. Some of them may avoid not only their obligations but my surgeries, knowing that I speak in a fairly straightforward manner on these issues. The overwhelming majority of those people—whose wives may be on income support, and hence would be helped by the acceptance of the new clause—readily acknowledge that they have a duty to protect their children.
Given that the Minister will reject the new clause, may I ask what guidelines are given to local officers in relation to applications made by such mothers for community care grants from the social fund? If they are not to be assisted through a maintenance disregard, why not assist them by way of another disregard: by telling them that they will not be given a crisis loan when they seek assistance to purchase essential resources for the house, but that they will always be considered sympathetically for a community care grant?
Why cannot women caught up in such circumstances be offered community care grants instead of crisis loans? The Minister will resist new clause 3, but if such emphasis


were given in relation to parents with care seeking financial assistance from the local Benefits Agency, that would be of some help.
I know of a young person who made such an application to the Benefits Agency in Greenock. She wanted a community care grant, not a loan that she would have to pay back out of her social security income. The young woman concerned had no complaints against the staff of the agency at Greenock. Indeed, the agency is to receive an award in a fortnight's time from Renfrewshire Enterprise because of its business plan and the work that it carries out in the area. Nevertheless, the young woman did not receive a community care grant. My advice to local officials is that, in such circumstances, they should help claimants by offering a community care grant rather than a loan.
If it is custom and practice that a community care grant is usually made available rather than a crisis loan, has that principle been established in local offices? I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my question. For most women—in this instance, we are talking mainly about women—it would be of help to know that they can obtain a community care grant rather than being offered a loan. If it is not custom and practice that such preferential treatment is offered, will the Minister give serious consideration to issuing appropriate guidelines by amending the criteria on which grants and loans are assessed?
I do not want to drift off course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you will forgive that maritime metaphor, in anticipation of the Minister's rejection of the new clause. I wish only to make a plea of mitigation. If the new clause is rejected, my question should be given serious attention.
In Australia, disregard is an established practice. I was recently speaking to people who are concerned with child support legislation in South Australia. They assured me that it is working well. The Minister will say, "The hon. Gentleman is bound to say that." I accept that there have been difficulties in implementing that legislation in Australia, but I was told that, in the state of South Australia, it seems to be working well. I am told that, to some extent, it meets the needs of women who are caring for children while living in inadequate housing and being unable to provide their children with the resources that other children come to expect as the normal scheme of things.
In the new clause, we are not asking for a great deal. Surely a compassionate Government should accept it in its entirety. We are not talking about an enormous number of women or a huge amount of money. If the new clause were accepted, some compensation would be made available to those whose lives are at best sparse and at worst characterised by sheer misery.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I support the new clause. I shall start by reflecting on why child support legislation has become controversial, which has necessitated, among other things, the Bill that is before us. That controversy relates directly to the issue which the new clause seeks to take up. It is legislation designed to bring about a cultural change—some might say a cultural revolution—after many years during which fathers were often able to escape financial responsibilities for their children.
Governments worldwide, and certainly in the United Kingdom—rightly, in my view—are seeking to promote the principle of parental responsibility. After many years during which fathers escaped their responsibilities—when court orders were not enforced—our child support legislation perhaps constitutes a major cultural revolution.
5.15 pm
The Government are seeking to respond to two major trends that are affecting the family, both of which are extremely controversial. The first is large-scale separation and divorce, which means that more and more people—adults and children—are living in one-parent families.
Secondly, there is the increasing phenomenon of single-never-married women with children, something to which the House needs to return on another occasion. The phenomenon is to be found in other European nations, but I think that Britain is ahead—I do not use that word in an approving way—and at the top of the league table. Single-never-married women represent the fastest-rising category of single parents in the United Kingdom. They are the group most likely to be dependent on income support.
The divorce phenomenon and the phenomenon of never-married-single women are controversial and would tax any Government. These phenomena have often become controversial also because of maladministration. There is controversy also because a public wider than those immediately concerned are cynical in believing that the Bill is not a true child support measure. When we are presented with evidence that the vast majority of one-parent families—those on income support—are not receiving extra benefit from child support, we can understand the public's cynicism. That is why the new clause should be taken seriously by the House.
Although I have used the term, I am not an Exchequer supporter. I do not disregard the interests of the taxpayer generally. I am struck by the fact, as are my colleagues, I am sure, that many of the families who come to see us at our surgeries are intact families where the marriage has survived. They are two-parent families that are often struggling against the odds, often in difficult economic times and in a difficult job market, to maintain their own children.
One of the difficulties for the Government is that they are presiding over record levels of taxation and at the same time record levels of social security expenditure. They are doing so—this is the paradox that we need to unravel and understand—at a time when there is a record level of social insecurity, in my judgment.
We must not make the mistake of saying—this certainly applies to my right hon. and hon. Friends—that there is an association between social security spending—state benefit spending—and true social security in the community. We need to think through the implications of that. If they can be avoided, I do not want to impose greater burdens on taxpayers who are looking after their own children. At the same time, however, a balance must be struck. In my judgment, a disregard—in other words, enabling one-parent families on income support to receive some of the benefit of child maintenance—is a part of the balance that should be introduced into the system.
If child poverty, not the Treasury, had been at the centre of concern when framing child support legislation, we would have had better social policy. These are always controversial matters, as evidence from various societies shows. At the same time, I think that a wider concern would have produced better social policy.
We need to get to grips with the fact that the rise of one-parent families is perhaps now the major cause—it is certainly a major cause—of child poverty in this country. The Secretary of State will have seen the recent report on low income statistics from the Social Security Committee,


which contains a table that shows the total number of children—our children, really—on income support in Great Britain. It is extraordinary in terms of the total number, but what strikes me as important about those data is that, increasingly, it is the one-parent family that is associated with poverty.
Opposition Members—perfectly rightly—say a great deal about unemployment, but in 1992, whereas 865,000 children of parents who were unemployed were on income support, the number of children on income support in lone-parent families was 1,750,000, a much larger number. That is the group that is growing most rapidly. When unemployment goes up and down—we can argue about how far it will go—at least it brings down the number of children in poverty for employment reasons.
As far as I can judge, the rise in the number of lone-parent families is somewhat impervious to changes in the economic cycle. It is certainly on the increase at the present time, even when official unemployment statistics point in the other direction. That major contributor to child poverty is of relevance to the new clause, because in a modest way it is saying, "If we can address the poverty of the children of families on income support, at least that will improve the welfare of those children." The welfare of those children must be at the heart of this measure.
I think that the Government will reply—we shall judge soon—that they do not consider a maintenance disregard as the way to tackle poverty, that evidence shows that we need to enable one-parent families to get into the labour market—to get jobs, in simple terms. I do not think that I and my hon. Friends would largely disagree with that broad analysis. Certainly, when one thinks about public expenditure priorities in the future, it is difficult to envisage any Government finding the resources to increase income support to such a level that one would seriously dent the poverty that those children face.
I would argue that the Government are now pushing that analysis too far. If one could devise a strategy to include employment, training, child care and the rest, that would be a good thing, and I would encourage it. In fact, I would encourage the Government to go rather further in that direction. By saying no to the disregard but yes to the child support bonus, which borrows heavily from the Jobseekers Bill—once one gets a job, one gets some benefit from the extra maintenance—the Government are in a curious position for the traditional "party of the family". There are lots of inverted commas in that phrase. They are now saying—not about all mothers—that a lone mother's place is in the job market.
I find that rather interesting, as I have been a student of Tory family politics for a number of years. Whereas, a decade and a half ago, the Tory party of the family was very much persuaded that a woman's place was in the home, and did not really like all the trendy new feminist stuff about careers and so on, there came a time when it came to recognise that perhaps women did have rights in the labour market, and a good thing too.
I had assumed, until I attended the recent Committee that considered the Bill, that the party of the family at least supported the idea of choice. I think that choice is important, and I commend the principle of choice to the Secretary of State. I should have thought that we should be saying to lone mothers on income support, particularly

when there are young children, "Although we might give you certain incentives and programmes to get into the labour market, nevertheless, as a mother of a child of four or five, you have a choice: whether to stay at home to look after your own child or to get a job."
Is the Secretary of State an advocate of choice in that area? I hope he is. I am bound to say that the force of this social policy is to push lone mothers into the labour market. If one stays on income support, one does not get any net benefit from child support. That is a serious point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) made the point that very few lone mothers are coming off income support because of child benefit. A figure of 8,000 in one year has been cited, against 1 million families involved. I should like to ask the Secretary of State about choice, or whether indeed there is now no choice for lone mothers on income support except to stay in poverty. Is he really now saying that the mothers of England who are on income support have to get jobs, because the Government will not offer any more?
I support my hon. Friends' arguments for a disregard, because those of us who support child support and who did so before we knew that the Government were to introduce it are wrestling with the difficult task of trying to save decent principle from bad practice. That is what it is about.
We have rehearsed some of the likely history of this before. We know that a former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, whom I read about in the public prints only today, announced the policy of child support and parental responsibility. My guess is that the official records one day will reveal that the Department of Social Security probably wanted a disregard, because there is some wisdom in that Department, or there certainly used to be, but, of course, the Treasury saw an opportunity.
The Treasury looked anew at public expenditure targets and projections, it won the battle with the Department of Social Security about the disregard, and it said, "You are not having it. We can't afford it." The original Child Support Bill was therefore a Bill deformed at birth.
That is the difficulty that we have had ever since. If only we could have had a disregard, we could have faced up to the critics of the Bill, including some, not all, of the nastier elements in British life who send obscene and dangerous communications to the staff of the Child Support Agency, and said, "No, this is child support not just in name. We can now point to evidence that children in the most impoverished circumstances are getting extra benefit."
One could point to data such as those in Australia, which show that children are getting more money. At least this is making an impression on child poverty, as caused by those circumstances. But I am afraid that the Treasury, which I have always regarded as a social policy literacy-free zone, got its claws into it and attempted to destroy it at birth. Therefore, some of us have been trying to help the Secretary of State and his colleagues to rescue it ever since by proposing changes and tabling amendments.
I repeat that the taxpayer has an interest—I know that from my advice surgeries, and how poor some of the families paying tax are—but the introduction of a disregard would have brought some social balance into the scheme. Although one or two of us have had this argument before, cross-party, and to some extent we have exhausted the arguments, I hope that Parliament might think again today. I hope that the Secretary of State will


have listened carefully to the arguments and will recognise that, if we are to create social policy out of this child support measure, a disregard is a modest but essential step in that direction.

Mr. George Stevenson: On Friday, I attended a meeting in Stoke-on-Trent involving people who had been seriously affected by the ignominious activities of the Child Support Agency. One reason for their continuing anger is their belief—justified, in my view—that any resources acquired by the agency are, in the main, not being passed on to the children whom, according to the Government, the whole mechanism is designed to support. The new clause is intended to deal with a fundamental contradiction that the Government, for some reason, have failed to recognise since the agency was set up a few years ago.
No doubt the Secretary of State will try to justify the Government's rejection of the new clause. I cannot see for the life of me—I know that the same applies to my hon. Friends—why the Government apparently intend, rather than supporting a maintenance disregard, merely to disregard the strength of our argument. If the fundamental principle is to ensure that children receive support, where is the sense in continuing to support a mechanism that will not achieve that? The new clause begins to address this serious anomaly.
The new clause was discussed in detail during that meeting on Friday. The result was a clear message to the Government: they are making a big mistake if they believe that changes that have been wrung out of them in a Bill forced on a reluctant Secretary of State—no doubt in the face of strong Treasury resistance—and will be drip-fed into the system created by the original legislation and the agency's activities, along with their rejection of a very reasonable new clause, will melt away the anger about the fundamental injustices that remain. Until such injustices are dealt with—new clause 3 tries to deal with one of them, albeit in a small way—the campaign, the justifiable protests and the anger that is felt throughout the country will not only remain but intensify.

Mr. Derek Enright: I have surgeries or appointments every week, and not a week has gone by without someone complaining to me about the unjust workings of the Child Support Act. They do not complain about the Act itself; most fathers admit that they have a duty to pay what their children require to receive a decent upbringing. They are complaining about the fact that the payment formula has been worked out in such a way that the poorest sections of the population are badly hit.
In particular, second families in which the husband is dutifully paying what he is required to pay have suddenly been made to double their payments. That is a major problem in low-wage areas such as the one that I represent: it is entirely wrong for those bringing up children on poverty wages suddenly to have sub-poverty wages thrust on them, and the exemptions demanded by the new clause would make a considerable difference.
It is not as if the Child Support Agency were currently at its most efficient. We were assured that the calculations affecting both the single partner requiring maintenance—male or female—and those paying the maintenance would be made more efficiently, but that has not happened. The cases that infuriate me most involve ladies whose

husbands have left them and their children to fend for themselves: the agency personnel say that they cannot possibly deal with those cases within two years, and are making no effort to find husbands who are not low earners but are, in fact, doing extraordinarily well. Where is the stretching of manpower that the Government claimed would be achieved?
It is a question of natural justice—of the recognition that families fall apart, and that we must do our best to foster the new relationships that result without exacerbating difficulties between former partners. Previously, when wives—predominantly—were left on their own, they and their children received allowances in addition to other allowances; now they do not. The allowances are cut to a minimum, so that parents cannot bring up their children decently. Moreover, such parents are unable to secure even the part-time jobs that exist in my constituency, because they are so poorly paid that the money would make no difference to their allowances.
No doubt the Government will reject the new clause, but I hope that they will show themselves to be flexible and imaginative. The Bill has its roots in cross-party co-operation: the ideals that inspired it are essentially cross-party, and those ideals remain.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will feel able to examine the position and do what they can. I hope that they will understand the difficulties experienced by a woman with one, two or three children who is shut up on her own because it is not worth her while to go out and get a job, and the effect that those difficulties will have on her children. That applies particularly in an area such as mine, where there are few diversions that provide opportunities to meet other people. Jobs often provide the only chance for people to come together. The Bill is a disincentive for families to take jobs.
Laying down a rate and taking a fixed amount from a man's wage makes the abandoned family, if we may call it that, no better off, but makes the new family infinitely worse off. That is precisely what is happening in terms of the marginal levels. We have made a meagre suggestion to try to alleviate some of the difficulties. It is not a massive step, and we may be criticised for not tabling a more substantial amendment. However, that meagre measure should be considered. It would cost the Treasury scarcely anything, if anything at all when one considers the way that crime could be prevented by a sensible use of this measure. The Government should accept it.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): The new clause deals with an area that has been the main cause of disagreement. However, disagreement has not been characteristic. On the contrary, I endorse the remark by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the Opposition have been supportive, co-operative and constructive. I welcome that, and may have the opportunity to say more about it later. That attitude is in marked contrast to that of the Liberal party, which has been fundamentally irresponsible and negative in this matter.
Before coming to my overall reply, I should like to mention one or two points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about problems that he has encountered at Falkirk. I shall certainly respond to his specific points if he pursues them with me or with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether community care grants could be an alternative to a maintenance disregard. It would not be possible or sensible to give privileged access to community care grants to people who were getting maintenance, and the new clause would give them the right to higher benefit. The Child Support Agency does not give advice on access to community grants. That would be delivered by the Benefits Agency, which is often housed in the same building, and would be in accordance with existing criteria.
As always, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) made an interesting contribution. He has always been robust in his support of the Bill's underlying principles—even when he disagrees with us on the detail. He suggested that the choice of the mother to return to work was at stake. By its nature and through its rules, income support loads the choice against taking up work, because it means that, for every £1 earned above the first few pounds, one is paid £1 less benefit. To try to restore the balance, we have introduced maintenance credit. The new clause would intensify the disincentive, and bias the choice against work.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) and some other hon. Members said that the resources raised by the Child Support Agency go mainly to the Treasury. But the Treasury has no money. All the maintenance is paid to the mother and belongs to her. To the extent that benefit is offset by that, money is returned to the taxpayer who is the source of all public finance. We should never forget that.
5.45 pm
Although I have carefully considered the arguments for a maintenance disregard as set out in the new clause and as argued in Committee, I reject the proposal for three basic reasons. First, the best way to help lone parents raise the standard of living of themselves and their children is to help them to return to work. Most of them wish to do that. The disregard would effectively pay people more to refrain from working. It raises the hurdle that they have to vault if they are to get back into work and the amount they have to earn to make that worth while. It is precisely the wrong approach.
We have put the £15 disregard into the benefits that help people who are seeking work or are in work. They are: family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. On top of that, we have increased the incentive to get off income support and back into work by introducing the maintenance credit, which is worth up to £1,000 and is payable when people get back into work.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) asked us to be flexible and imaginative if we could not accept the new clause. Ours is a flexible and imaginative response, and it was certainly not expected until we presented the Bill. The proposal to introduce a maintenance disregard is particularly odd, because it would give extra only to those who get maintenance, and nothing to those who get none. It would be hard to justify to those who were in that unfortunate position.
Secondly, I do not support the proposal because we are sceptical about the claim, by the Opposition in general and by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) in particular, that a disregard would persuade absent

parents who were otherwise resisting paying maintenance to pay up with more enthusiasm. There is no evidence that, because parents with care receive a £15 disregard in the in-work benefits, absent parents would be less reluctant or more willing to pay maintenance.
If there is any such effect, the maintenance credit, which enables a parent with care and the child to benefit by up to £1,000 in maintenance from the absent parent, should act as a spur. It should encourage the parent with care to go back to work, and if she does that she may share part of the financial responsibility of maintenance and reduce the assessment of the absent parent. Because of the maintenance credit, the absent parent should be more willing to pay than he was in the past.
By contrast, the disregard would discourage parents from returning to work. I regret to say that that has been a major source of friction, because the absent parent sees the parent with care staying at home on benefit, and resents the fact that that parent is not working.
In any case, the changes that we have made through the package of measures introduced by regulations from the beginning of April and incorporated in the Bill will go a long way to reduce the genuine resentments that caused many absent parents to be reluctant to co-operate with the agency and to pay maintenance. I hope that we will undermine resistance in that way rather than by the introduction of a maintenance disregard.
The final reason for rejecting the proposal for a maintenance disregard is the cost to the taxpayer. The administration cost alone would be some £40 million a year. At the level that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) originally proposed, it would cost in total some £340 million, including administration costs. His last proposal would cost some £245 million a year, including administration costs.
Certainly, whatever the Opposition are talking about—and they are not specific in the new clause—they are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds extra for the taxpayer to pay. This very day, the Leader of the Opposition in his Mais lecture is claiming that the Labour party has abandoned the politics of tax and spend, yet the new clause is down on the Order Paper in his name. We have to ask whether he is aware of that, or whether it has been put down by his hon. Friends without his knowledge.
If so, I have to say that it is a fairly frequent occurrence. I have today listed and published 20 spending commitments in the social security sphere alone, the bulk of them put down in the name of Leader of the Opposition, that have been debated in this Parliament and to which we may suppose that the Labour party is committed. They effectively amount to the rejection of the average £4 billion a year of savings that I proposed, as a result of my Mais lecture, in social security spending by the end of the decade, and £14 billion a year in the next century.
We know that the average working family—married couples and self-supporting lone parents—on average pay around £1,500 a year in extra tax to meet the cost of supporting lone parents on benefit. I do not believe that they want to spend hundreds of millions of pounds more on top of that, yet that is what the new clause would mean. They certainly will not believe any Labour leader who claims that he is against tax and spend while advocating that sort of policy.
The Leader of the Opposition claims that he is clothing his party in the robes of fiscal responsibility, but the new clause shows that the emperor has no clothes. The Labour


party has no clothes; it is not so much new Labour as nude Labour. The proposals that we have before us today are typical of old Labour—throwing money at any problem and encouraging dependency.

Mr. Wicks: I regret interrupting the sound bites. To get back to reality and, if I am allowed, to the new clause, am I right to say that it was under this Government that the amount of maintenance collected under the old regime declined and declined, at huge public cost, and that it is under this Government that the proportion of one-parent families dependent on income support, at great public cost, has risen and risen? The Government have spent and, as a consequence, they have had to tax.

Mr. Lilley: There has been a trend under Governments of both parties, in this country and in many others, towards the break-up of the family and towards having children out of wedlock, both of which have contributed to the growth of lone parenthood, in Britain and abroad. We believe that that was aggravated by the old system of judgments that were made, but often not enforced, by the courts in cases where proper maintenance was not paid. That is why we, and the whole House, agreed to replace the old system with this system—with, I have to say, the honourable and straightforward support of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks).
We believe that it is right to do so, because, ultimately, the responsibility for supporting children is that of both parents. Even if they split up, the taxpayer should come in only to the extent that the parents do not have the means to support their children. The Child Support Agency exists to assess whether parents have those means, and to ensure that they pay if they do. Where parents do not have the means, of course, the taxpayer has to bear much of the cost.

Mr. Wicks: I am not in the business of always defending the last Labour Government, but my recollection is that, in the late 1970s, about four out of 10 one-parent families were on income support. That is a huge proportion, but it is now seven out of 10. The public expenditure implications of that are obvious to us.

Mr. Lilley: Surely that is a reason for supporting the proposals which we have put forward and which are inherent in the Bill, not for increasing the level of benefit, which would encourage more people to remain on benefit and fewer to work.
One of the reasons for the trend that the hon. Member mentioned is that, over that period, whereas more married women have gone out to work, fewer women lone parents have gone out to work. The number has declined. That must be for the very incentive reasons which I spelled out earlier, and which would be exacerbated were we to accept the new clause.
For all those reasons, I believe that it is much better that we rely on maintenance credit and on the disregard in the in-work benefits, rather than on increasing the level of benefit arbitrarily for those who are receiving maintenance, thereby discouraging a return to work, costing the taxpayer money, and, not, I believe, leading to any measurable increase in compliance with the Child Support Agency.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's opening remarks, but his speech went downhill from that point. We have always tried to be constructive, to try to

get equity into the system. The changes that have been made most recently in regulations and in the Bill have basically favoured the so-called absent parent. I do not argue with that, but the new clause attempts to bring in a disregard to try to get fairness and equity in the changes, and to give more support to parents with care.
I am grateful for the contributions of my hon. Friends, which, as always through the passage of the Bill, have been extremely thoughtful and positive, particularly on the matter of a disregard.
I am also grateful for the support of the Liberal Democrats for this proposal, but we have heard again tonight that their basic position is to scrap the Bill and replace it with family courts. I am pleased that, during the debate on new clause 4, which proposes an advisory committee and relates to family courts, their spokesperson will have the opportunity to give details about how family courts would work. They promised during the passage of the Bill that they would give us that detail. However, I will not stray into that now.
It must be stressed again that, under the current arrangements parents with care on income support lose, pound for pound, for any maintenance paid. The sole intention of the new clause is to try to give more money to the poorest parents to help their children. It is not a case of the Labour party having no clothes. We are trying to ensure through the new clause that the parents with care can afford the clothes their children deserve. That is why we are trying to improve the financial situation of parents with care who have to rely on benefit.
In his summing up, the Secretary of State said that there was a clear disincentive against going back to work, but he also, I think, said that many parents with care wanted to go back to work. I asked him about evidence of that disincentive. He did not provide any, but I hope that he will do so after the debate.
The Secretary of State also repeated the arguments made in Committee and on Second Reading, that the way to alleviate poverty for lone parents is to enable them to return to work. I would not argue with that as a long-term aspiration, but lone parents, especially those with young children, should have the choice of bringing up their children themselves and remaining at home on a decent level of income. They may be on benefit, so the need for a disregard is paramount, to ensure that we raise marginally the level of income of those parents caring for children at home.
6 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said that he remembers the Tories advocating a family policy to enable mums to remain at home to look after their children. The headlines were reinforced by Tory propaganda about latchkey children. The Bill attempts to return to the situation in which lone parents are forced to return to work when they do not have adequate child care provision. The sole purpose of the new clause is to introduce a disregard, and bring those vital extra pennies into the family to support children.
We strongly believe that a disregard would be an incentive to co-operate with the agency and pay what is required. It would mean that the public had confidence that the Child Support Agency was making money available to support children. The new clause puts children first and would give more money to the poorest


families to enable them to support their children. I urge the House to support us in our attempt to protect and support children, by supporting the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 259.

Division No. 153]
[6.01 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Ainger, Nick
Fatchett, Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Alton, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Foulkes, George


Ashton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Austin-Walker, John
Galloway, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, John


Barnes, Harry
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gerrard, Neil


Battle, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bayley, Hugh
Godman, Dr Norman A


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gordon, Mildred


Bell, Stuart
Graham, Thomas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Berry, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gunnell, John


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hain, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hall, Mike


Burden, Richard
Hanson, David


Byers, Stephen
Harvey, Nick


Caborn, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heppell, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hodge, Margaret


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hoey, Kate


Cann, Jamie
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clapham, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoyle, Doug


Clelland, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corston, Jean
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Janner, Greville


Cummings, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dalyell, Tam
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Donohoe, Brian H
Livingstone, Ken


Dowd, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eastham, Ken
McAvoy, Thomas


Enright, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Etherington, Bill
Macdonald, Calum





McKelvey, William
Rendel, David


Mackinlay, Andrew
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McLeish, Henry
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McMaster, Gordon
Rogers, Allan


MacShane, Denis
Rooker, Jeff


Madden, Max
Rooney, Terry


Mahon, Alice
Ross, Emie (Dundee West)


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Sheerman, Barry


Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meacher, Michael
Short, Clare


Meale, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Spearing, Nigel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Stevenson, George


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Hara, Edward
Touhig, Don


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tyler, Paul


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Vaz, Keith


Pickthall, Colin
Walley, Joan


Pike, Peter L
Wicks, Malcolm


Pope, Greg
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Worthington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wright, Dr Tony


Purchase, Ken
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Quin, Ms Joyce



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Peter Mandelson and


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. George Mudie.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Alexander, Richard
Browning, Mrs Angela


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Budgen, Nicholas


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carrington, Matthew


Atkins, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Churchill, Mr


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coe, Sebastian


Bates, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Congdon, David


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Booth, Hartley
Couchman, James


Boswell, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandreth, Gyles
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bright, Sir Graham
Devlin, Tim






Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dover, Den
Knox, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Legg, Barry


Durant, Sir Anthony
Leigh, Edward


Elletson, Harold
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Faber, David
Luff, Peter


Fabricant, Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew


Fishburn, Dudley
Maclean, David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, Sir David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Malone, Gerald


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Sir Peter
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Merchant, Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mills, Iain


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Andrew
Onstow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Harris, David
Ottaway, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawkins, Nick
Pawsey, James


Hawksley, Warren
Pickles, Eric


Hayes, Jerry
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heald, Oliver
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Hendry, Charles
Rathbone, Tim


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Riddick, Graham


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robathan, Andrew


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Horam, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Sackville, Tom


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunter, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jack, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sims, Roger


Jenkin, Bernard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jessel, Toby
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Soames, Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Spencer, Sir Derek


Key, Robert
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Warcs)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spink, Dr Robert





Spring, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sproat, Iain
Walden, George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stephen, Michael
Ward, John


Stem, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stewart, Allan
Watts, John


Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen


Sweeney, Walter
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sykes, John
Whitney, Ray


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thomason, Roy
Willetts, David


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thumham, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 4

CHILD SUPPORT ADVISORY COMMITTE (No.2)

' .—(1) There shall be a body to be called the Child Support Advisory Committee ("the Committee").
(2) The Committee shall consist of not less than eight and not more than fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State shall appoint one member of the Committee to chair its proceedings.
(4) In appointing the members of the committee, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing persons with experience and knowledge of—

(a) family proceedings and the work of family courts;
(b) child support legislation; and
(c) the welfare of children.

(5) It shall be the duty of the Committee to advise the Secretary of State on the working of child support legislation, and to make recommendations, when it sees fit, for amending such legislation.
(6) It shall be the duty of the Committee to prepare an annual report and to submit it to the Secretary of State.
(7) The report prepared under subsection (6) above shall include—

(a) details of the number of child maintenance assessments made in the year, and an analysis of their effect on child welfare;
(b) details of the number of departure directions made in the year, and an analysis of their impact on the effectiveness of child maintenance;
(c) details of the number of reviews undertaken by child support officers in the year, and an analysis of the results of these reviews;
(d) details of the number of appeals made to child support appeal tribunals in the year together with an analysis of the grounds of appeals and the findings of the tribunals, and its assessment of any implications of that analysis for the reform of child support legislation; and
(e) any other matters which the Committee considers appropriate.

(8) The Secretary of State shall lay copies of each report made to him under subsection (6) above before both Houses of Parliament.
(9) Any expenses incurred by the members of the Committee appointed under this section may be reimbursed by the Secretary of State out of moneys provided by Parliament.'.—[Mr. Dewar.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am delighted to move the new clause and I assure the Secretary of State that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I are as one on this matter, as we are on most matters.

Mr. Lilley: Equally to blame.

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman can put it that way if he wants, but we will let the nation judge.
During the last minute or two I have managed to obtain a copy of the press release referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. I will not go into the detail because others will no doubt wish to do so. However, it begins with what is positively the most offensive pun, in terms of taste, that I have seen for a long time. It is an extraordinary production.
However, I am glad to see that of the 20 major and decisive spending commitments that I am accused of making—which apparently will change the whole tide of fiscal history in the United Kingdom—the 20th is the new clause that we are about to discuss. That puts the matter into some sort of perspective. Apparently, the appointment of an advisory body is evidence of the fiscal irresponsibility upon which the right hon. Gentleman founds his case. I need hardly tell him that we will be looking carefully at the list and will want to comment on it in due course. I find it a remarkably unconvincing indictment and it is not one that could be taken to a higher court, never mind the high court of Parliament, by a politician with any sense of perspective.
I suppose that, in a way, I am flattered, but it seems lunatic for the Secretary of State to assume, for example, that because one tables a question seeking information, in which one asks for the costing of a development at varying levels, one is making a spending commitment at the level of the highest variable. That does not do the Secretary of State's credibility much good.

Mr. Lilley: It would be simple for the hon. Gentleman to tell us how much he would give in a maintenance disregard, or any of the other items to which he referred. Since he is always prepared to bandy numbers about but not to commit himself, he cannot complain if others put an obvious construction on the numbers that he uses.

Mr. Dewar: It is not an obvious construction. To put it as charitably as possible, the right hon. Gentleman has been in Government too long. When he arrives on the Opposition Benches I wonder whether he will hesitate, saying, "I would like that information, but my goodness if I ask for it, the Government are entitled to say that that is a spending commitment." No sensible person would take that approach. I suggest that he should reconsider his position.
I do not want to proceed too far down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will confine myself to saying that I would be genuinely surprised to discover that I am as generous a Santa Claus figure as the Secretary of State imagines. It would come as an even greater surprise to the many lobbying groups that have come to me looking for promises and discovered that they are not easy to obtain, for good hard-headed and practical reasons—that is, the problems that the Labour Government are likely to inherit. If the Secretary of State wants something to worry about today, he might consider one sentence in the White Paper on competitiveness.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Does the one sentence refer to the child support advisory committee?

Mr. Dewar: I—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer is either yes or no.

Mr. Dewar: Even for someone in your impartial position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, answers of yes or no are dangerous. I will merely suggest that the Secretary of State might worry about the Government's inability to help raise living standards in old age, which is mentioned in the White Paper, and the more interesting suggestion that taxation policy is totally out of the Government's control because of global movements of capital across national frontiers.
Item 20 on the Secretary of State's list is the interesting and important new clause that we are discussing. The new clause has been tabled because the child support advisory committee is a genuine subject for discussion and debate. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who is replying to the debate, will say that the committee is unnecessary because we already have the Select Committees on Social Security and on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the ombudsman—the Social Security Advisory Committee and the chief child support officer.
I accept that a range of people deal, on an ad hoc or occasional basis, with the facts, figures and development of the Child Support Agency. The trouble is that even they should be redundant if the agency were producing the sort of overall and comprehensive figure in its annual reports that would allow one to take a clear view of what is happening, but I am afraid that that is not the case. The agency has become a special case in many ways, but especially in view of its daunting and, at times, depressing record—a fact that Ministers have conceded. After every allowance is made for special circumstances, every alibi weighed in the balance and every explanation explored, the deplorable fact remains that, in many ways, the agency has been an administrative nightmare. Arguably, it has missed many of its social targets—I say arguably because the figures are obscure.
I must make it clear that the Opposition recognise that the task of the agency, and no doubt of the Department, has been greatly hampered by people who have not co-operated. On occasions, non co-operation has been taken to lengths that I condemn and from which I would distance my party. Having said that, many people have commented on the failure to learn by past mistakes, such as the introduction of the disability living allowance. We are in the sad situation that many people who are in touch with the agency see its administrative record and the policy framework within which it operates as adding insult to perceived injury.
I will give one or two brief examples, as I do not want to delay the House. I referred to the chief child support officer who has a remit under section 13 of the Child Support Act 1991. According to the foreword of his recent report the remit includes
the making, review or cancellation of maintenance assessments … by Child Support Officers…within the Child Support Agency".
The figures that he produced, which will be familiar to many hon. Members—certainly to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security—were remarkable. Of the 1,188 maintenance assessments examined and taken for


analysis, 157 were found to be correct, 545 to be incorrect and there was insufficient evidence to tell whether the other 486 were correct or incorrect. I rehearse those as an aide-memoire to hon. Members about the scale of the problems that we have been facing. Only 157 assessments out of 1,188 could possibly be said—on the face of the file—to be accurate and as they should have been.
Of course, a series of reports from the Select Committees on Social Security and on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have commented harshly on what has been happening and it is important to remember that great efforts are being made to improve the position. There have been changes at the top in the Child Support Agency and there is no doubt about that. I talked to the new chief executive, Ann Chant, and I appreciate that the agency is trying to make some sort of order out of what appears to have been a good deal of chaos.
I hope that this is not evidence of individual human frailty on my part, but as far as I am concerned it is still extremely difficult to discover with any accuracy what the position is. I am thinking, for example, of the amount of money that the agency takes in maintenance and in other ways as a result of maintenance assessments, the benefit savings and their definition, the liable relative carry-over and what percentage it is of the total, the amount going to children who live in families and the amount going in benefit savings to the Treasury, the number of parents with care who have been floated off—the term that has become jargon—benefit and the number of good cause cases that have not been accepted when there is some dispute as to whether information is being withheld, either properly or improperly, by parents with care at the start of the process.
In March, I made determined efforts to establish some of those things, on the basis that we were about to have the Second Reading of the Bill. I looked—with advice and some help—at the Child Support Agency's annual report and the various parliamentary questions available to us. It was due only to the fact that the chief executive of the agency readily conceded a meeting that I subsequently got a memorandum that tried to deal with some of those fundamental statistics and I pay tribute to her for that. I think that it was agreed, by implication, that the statistics could not have been collected in any other way because they were not generally available. I have before me the three-page memorandum that I received in March. Even then, it threw up a good number of questions when I tried to move the debate on and satisfy myself that I had good grounds for making various points.
6.30 pm
It is easy to say, "That is a simple, basic list of questions. You should be able to get that information easily out of a parliamentary question." It is not so. May I take a simple example and ask for the comments of the Under-Secretary of State, whom we have in our line of sight? It is not a case of trying to shoot the poor man down. He has enough troubles without our adding to them, but this is a good opportunity to get him to elucidate a recent parliamentary question. I recently asked for the average maintenance assessment, excluding those who were on income support, and the answer was £43.46.
That is an interesting figure because it is the average weekly maintenance payable by absent parents who receive income from employment, but it excludes people

who may also be on income support. I think that it includes an average of families with one, two or three children, so it is not per capita but per family unit. I presume that that average figure will fall further as a result of the administrative changes that went through in April. I believe that a drop of £5 to £10 is expected, as there was a parliamentary answer to that effect. Unlike the Secretary of State, I do not immediately assume that it will be a £10 drop. I am prepared to accept that the drop may be of only £5, but it will greatly reduce the figure of £43.46.
This is relevant to the new clause, as I am trying to establish why, exceptionally, there is a case for a review body and an outside assessment. I draw the attention of the House to a parliamentary answer obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on 18 May. This may be a moment of curiosity on my part. It may not raise a major issue of principle, but I should have expected that the answer to my hon. Friend would have been in the form of a letter from Miss Ann Chant. Although it clearly deals with agency statistics, it has apparently been answered by the Under-Secretary and the Ministry and I am puzzled as to why that has happened. I hasten to say that I do not object. If it is a trend, I am prepared to endorse and welcome it. This will be another area for common ground for an all-party alliance, which is what the Secretary of State is always striving to achieve. Will he say a word or two in explanation?
I hurry over the first table in the parliamentary answer, which deals with
Benefit Status of Parent with Care and Absent Parent at 11 March 1995"—[Official Report, 18 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 331.]—
because, with the best will in the world, I cannot understand it. I have asked several people more versed in statistics than me to explain it. I intimated that I was concerned and puzzled about the figures, so perhaps the Under-Secretary has been taking advice and we shall have the benefit of it in a moment.
Will the Under-Secretary look at some of the other figures in the parliamentary answer, which I understand but cannot easily explain? The table at the top of column 332 shows that the average maintenance assessment, which is a full assessment excluding interim maintenance assessments, for absent parents not on income support—what I prefer to call "liable parents not on income support"—is £37.22. That is significantly lower than the £43.46 but the explanation, which I accept, is that the higher figure refers to liable parents who are not in receipt of income support but who have income from employment, whereas the lower figure refers to all absent parents who are not in receipt of income support but who may receive another state benefit or have no income. I see that that might slightly reduce the average figure.
However, as the Minister will see from the maintenance assessments, which fall between £0 and £2.30, that sum is paid by 24.4 per cent. of the total number of people who pay maintenance or are assessed for maintenance purposes. I do not doubt the accuracy of the figure because it is in a parliamentary answer but I should like a comment on it because, as the House will remember, those people are not on income support. Most of them are in employment, so it seems remarkable that 24.4 per cent. of them should pay below the minimum figure expected from someone on income support. I simply do not understand how that figure can be so high. It is not a case


of what they pay but what they are being asked to pay. For one in four people who are not on income support, most of whom are in employment, to pay less than £2.30 is astonishing and I do not understand how it happens.
The table also shows the full maintenance assessment for liable parents on income support, which is very clear. My understanding always was—clearly, I have got it wrong and should perhaps appear in sackcloth and ashes—that people on income support paid a minimum of £2.30, which has just been uprated to £2.34. The average maintenance assessment—not what is paid—for people on income support is £0.93, which is an awful lot short of £2.34. We also see that 58.9 per cent. of people on income support who have been assessed have a nil assessment. I do not understand that. I do not necessarily object to it because, if there is a good explanation—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social (Mr. Alistair Burt): The second table to which the hon. Gentleman refers relates to people with second families. Those on income support but with a second family have a nil assessment.

Mr. Dewar: Is the Minister saying that as many as 60 per cent. of those on income support fall into that category?

Mr. Burt: Yes.

Mr. Dewar: Right. I shall think about that, but it seems to be a remarkable statistic.

Mr. Burt: rose—

Mr. Dewar: The Under-Secretary may want to comment later. I hope that the House does not think that I am making too much of this matter. I merely use this as an illustration, as it is the most recent information to reach me, because it throws up an enormous number of questions which are not easily answered and which suggest that something is out of sync and out of balance in the results that are being produced.

Mr. Burt: May I help the hon. Gentleman on that table? We were asked for a snapshot of current figures, which is what the table represents. Many of the cases that have already been cleared were the simplest to deal with. Where information comes back and someone is on benefit, it is often simple and straightforward to deal with the administration. A number of cases pending are those where there is a dispute about earnings, where the agency is seeking verification of earnings, or where the person is self-employed. If we were to take all the cases currently on the books, whether or not an assessment has been made, we would expect those figures to change. The proportion of those who are on income support is therefore greater in the assessments that have been cleared than would be expected once all the work has been done. That is why there is now an imbalance. If the hon. Gentleman were to ask for the same figures in 12 or 24 months' time, we suspect that the answers and proportions would be different.

Mr. Dewar: That makes the case for monitoring closely, and in a way that is more constructive than exchanges across the Floor of the House or the somewhat one-sided process of parliamentary questioning.
I have to say to the Under-Secretary of State that it is an eloquent comment on what has been happening that, two and a quarter years into the agency system, he is able to advance, as an explanation for what are obviously very skewed results, the fact that it has been difficult to deal with difficult cases.

Mr. Burt: indicated assent.

Mr. Dewar: It may be true, but it is an unfortunate comment. It appears to me to make the case that I am trying—perhaps rather laboriously—to establish for a review body of the type suggested in the new clause.
After all, at the moment the number of maintenance assessments that show no employment income is 43.8 per cent.—a very large percentage indeed—and, if 60 per cent. of those parents make a nil contribution, it says something interesting about the way in which the scheme is proceeding. I do not know whether the Minister wants to comment further, but we can, and doubtless will, pursue those matters by letter.
In any event, I contend that the figures show how difficult it has been to establish the administration of the agency on a proper basis. I hope—as I quite often do—that I am wrong, but I suspect that there may be difficult passages ahead of us. I do not want to be ungracious for a moment about change that we demanded, and which is now on the way. It is not what we wanted; it is certainly not all that we wanted. However, we were keen to have a procedure whereby one could apply for a departure from the usual financial formula, and now it is important that that works well, that it responds quickly in cases where it is needed and that it is seen to be injecting a measure of fairness into a system that is perceived as unfair. Monitoring and adjusting will be key, and in that respect I envisage the child support advisory committee having a useful role.
That is also true of clean break settlements, which, as you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, apply only to agreements made before April 1993, and which are based on what was reasonably directly called "a broad brush approach" in the White Paper. There is also the vexed question of travel costs. Those will throw up many difficulties. I hope that they will throw up, in the longer term, solutions to some of our problems, but in the teething period there will be frustrations and perhaps mysteries about the way in which the system works. Therefore the need for monitoring is repeatedly proved by experience, and will be proved again.
There are unexpected aspects in which policy advice from an outside source that perhaps was seen as not being contaminated by contact with the Opposition Benches might, one hopes, bring about some improvement.
I received a parliamentary answer—perhaps I should have updated it, and I apologise to the House. It is for 1994–95, but it runs from April 1994 to the end of January 1995. It produced what, to me, was another astonishing figure—that special payments for financial redress have been made only 34 times in that period.
I know the experience of Conservative Members because it has been voiced in the past. There is a very thin turn-out today, but in the past Conservative Members have expressed many complaints and anxieties about the number of angry scenes, confrontations, complaints and anxieties and the amount of stress and strain that the system has caused. It is remarkable that the compensation system is so hedged and circumscribed that it produced only 34 payments for financial redress.
Select Committees have made many other criticisms of the way in which matters have developed, as has the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Administration, who, as my colleagues will remember, reached the conclusion that he could not take on any more cases unless they produced some new point of principle because of the flood of complaints that he was receiving. He made it clear, as did the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, that he saw much of the seed of that discontent in mistakes by Ministers. I quote the Committee:
We are in no doubt that maladministration in the CSA cannot be divorced from the responsibility of Ministers for the framework within which it operated
and that
any policy deficiency was cruelly exacerbated by administrative incompetence".
That is from paragraphs 27 and 35 of House of Commons paper 199.
I hope that I have established that there is anxiety that the system needs a great deal of monitoring. It should receive that monitoring. Co-ordinated scrutiny is needed—we do not want the "dipstick" approach—and it should be carried out by a group of the type that we recommend, which will involve individuals of experience with a wide background and knowledge of the area.
6.45 pm
I am not trying to land the Secretary of State with professional critics; I seek tough, realistic assessors. I do not seek a hanging party, a lynch party—unless the circumstances justify that. There is every advantage in a committee that can examine things impartially, to lend some perspective to what I think everyone will see from the record has become the rather blinkered approach of those in command politically.

Mr. Timms: In supporting the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for a child support advisory committee, I wish to concentrate on one aspect of the system that has been created—the formula by which maintenance assessments from absent parents are calculated, and especially the protected income provisions.
I am grateful for work that has been carried out by Christopher Allen of the London Business School, which he has shown me. He has considered the maintenance formula system as part of the taxation system and drawn some conclusions about it, many of which are striking. I wish to draw them to the attention of the House.
The protected income provisions in the formula are intended to ensure that an absent parent is better off working than on income support. The formula assessment compares the maintenance demand with that protected income figure and, if necessary, the maintenance assessment is reduced to allow the absent parent to retain their protected income level.
The protected income provisions were made considerably more generous in February 1994, the last time that the attempt was made to repair that system. Since then, the arrangements have allowed for £30 earned income in excess of income support levels, plus 15 per cent. of a new partner's income. The provisions have undoubtedly had some impact because, as the figures provided in the parliamentary answer to which my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred show, about

10 and a half per cent. of full maintenance assessments for non-benefit cases are now assessed at a zero contribution. That is considerably more than was the case when the social security statistics were published, the date to which those apply being June 1994.
Paradoxically, that increased generosity has considerably worsened the poverty trap for those people who earn slightly more than the protected income threshold, because the post-maintenance income of people earning between £30 and £60 above the exempt income level will be reduced to the protected income level. That represents a 100 per cent. marginal tax rate on their income. Remarkably, the figures in the written answer show that about one third—32.8 per cent.—of the non-benefit cases with which the agency is dealing fall in that category.
I can explain how that system works. The research paper 94/20, which the House of Commons Library produced last year before the changes were made last February, states:
If paying the proposed maintenance would reduce the absent parent and any new family to a level of income below the protected income, the child maintenance payable is decreased so that the absent parent is left with the protected level of income.
Conversely, if the absent parent's income increases because of additional overtime payments or other such factors, the child maintenance payable is increased. The marginal increase in income—all 100 per cent.—is taken away by the formula. That is an extraordinary system, and, taken together with the benefit system, it means that absent parents are no better off, and may be worse off, if they take a better job or work additional overtime.
I wonder how that position has arisen. It was suggested earlier that the Treasury had intervened in some aspects of the system. The Treasury certainly has not intervened in the formula. The arrangements that have been reached appear to be entirely contrary to the Government's normal taxation policies.
A large proportion of maintenance assessments—one third of them—fall within the range. If we take 100 per cent. of the marginal income increases of people on relatively low and modest incomes, the system becomes insupportable. I have no confidence that we will not be here in a year's time trying to do yet another desperate repair job on a system that is breaking down. For that reason I strongly believe that we need the monitoring arrangements described by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden. We need a committee that can investigate what is going on and that can propose changes to create a sustainable and supportable system. We have not yet achieved such a system.
I shall say a few words about those who fall beyond the £30 to £60 band. The effect of the protected income system are clearly the most aggressive aspects of the maintenance system, but even without those provisions the system is extremely regressive. Up to the payment in full of the maintenance allowance, the marginal rate on take-home income is 50 per cent. If we take into account national insurance contributions and the 25 per cent. income tax level, the overall marginal tax plus maintenance rate over that range is 77 per cent. The absent parent will keep only 23 per cent. of additional earnings. The position might be acceptable if the money represented a transfer of money to improve the children's welfare, but, as we have heard, it does not. That is one specific example, but it is by no means the only one.
The system towards which we are moving still contains severe anomalies and insupportable elements that will require further attention. The changes that are proposed in the Bill are helpful, but as I understand it, they increase the scope of protected and exempt income and push the problems that I have been describing up the income scale. There will still be a large proportion of agency cases who suffer 100 per cent. marginal payment rates in maintenance plus tax. That problem and others like it require the monitoring arrangements proposed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) introduced the new clause in an entertaining manner and tried to divert the attention of the House away from the excellent press release that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published today. On this occasion, as on all others, I wholly subscribe to the views of my right hon. Friend. The easiest way for the hon. Member for Garscadden to clear up any confusion about what his party intends to do and how it intends to finance it is for him to come clean now about my right hon. Friend's statements and deal with the matter once and for all. I suspect that we will be unable to deal with that matter simply today, as we have been asking for a long time for evidence of what the Labour party intends to do should it come to office, and the answers are always fudged.
I remember the celebrated exchange in Committee when the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) asked the Government to provide more substantial child care support through family credit—a subject to which he might return today. I asked him how much and he gave an extremely evasive answer. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's efforts to get answers on the subject will have limited success. However, that subject is not the substance of our discussions today and I shall hurry on to deal with the new clause.
The hon. Member for Garscadden also described some of the advice groups that give information to all of us about the effects of the Child Support Agency. He was right to draw a distinction between some of the groups that give us reasonable and straightforward advice and some that appear to have gone slightly too far in some of their activities and the way in which they object to the CSA.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman dissociated himself and his party from some of the more extreme activities that we have seen. I am afraid that those activities still continue. The group, Network Against the Child Support Act, in its current periodical clearly suggests to its members that they should lie to the agency to get information and that they should seek to make life difficult for the officers of the CSA simply in order to disrupt the system. They then wonder why we feel aggrieved at such action and suggest that it does not help anyone. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dissociating himself from such groups and hope that he continues to do so.
As the hon. Gentleman has explained, the new clause provides for an advisory committee to advise the Secretary of State on the workings of the child support scheme. We value consultation; there was a wide-ranging consultation exercise before regulations were made under

the 1991 Act. We have always taken careful note of the advice of the Select Committee on Social Security and the views of other interested parties in developing the improvements to the child support scheme of which the Bill's provisions form a key part.
We have also had a constructive dialogue with many representatives of absent parents, parents with care and those with experience of family law issues. In developing the changes that we announced in January, we consulted eminent family lawyers and we correspond frequently about the child support scheme with many organisations, including the National Council for One Parent Families, Child Poverty Action Group, citizens advice bureaux and the Law Society. Whatever problems we may have had with child support, they have not been for lack of consultation and it is not clear how the new clause can assist. The Government's main concern is not so much that the new clause and its implications will add to consultation, but that it will obscure existing responsibilities—the hon. Gentleman acknowledged at the beginning of his remarks that that was the main flaw in his argument.
In addition to the function of overseeing legislation—analogous to that of the Social Security Advisory Committee—the proposed child support advisory committee would be required to monitor operational aspects of child support. It is on that subject that the committee's proposed annual reports would focus. In that respect, the committee would duplicate the role, not only of the Select Committee on Social Security, but of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the National Audit Office and the chief child support officer.
Both the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the National Audit Office have reported on the operation of the child support scheme. They have drawn attention to problems with those operations and, in response, Ministers have indicated the steps that are being taken to address those problems—in particular, by improved methods within the agency for measuring accuracy, additional checking and enhanced training for staff.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated briefly on the report of the chief child support officer and he was correct to deal with the shortcomings of the agency which the chief child support officer found. However, I remind all hon. Members that, although comments were raised in 86 per cent. of the sample, that does not mean that the assessment was incorrect in every case. We agree that the accuracy rate has been poor and inadequate and we are exerting a great deal of effort to put it right. The agency aims to reduce that comment rate, which was previously 86 per cent of the sample, to 40 per cent. of the sample as soon as possible. That is a particularly demanding target which has been chosen to reflect the importance that the agency attaches to the judgment of its performance by independent bodies.
There is great determination to reach that target in 1995–96 and to deal with the problems that have caused that high figure. Action taken to date includes remedial action on accuracy and quality initiatives. The agency's second-year plan has dealt with many problems. There has been a reorganisation of reviews and appeal work and we have developed staff training further. We have taken serious notice of the reports by the chief child support officer. He is part of the vital monitoring equipment that is built into the work of the Child Support Agency. That


is his job, and it is another reason why we do not believe that the superfluous committee that has been mentioned this evening is necessary.
Many of the changes announced in the White Paper entitled "Improving Child Support" are also aimed at improving the operation of the child support scheme. I have no doubt that both the Parliamentary Commissioner and the National Audit Office will continue to provide valuable information about areas where we can improve the scheme and that Ministers will continue to respond positively to that feedback.
Hon. Members will be aware that the post of the chief child support officer was set up under the Child Support Act 1991 to advise child support officers on the performance of their duties. His functions, which he discharges independently of Ministers or the Department of Social Security, include monitoring child support adjudication and reporting annually on performance. His annual reports contain much that is of use in identifying areas where further work is needed and I know that he and agency managers are committed to working together to improve performance.
7 pm
The Department and the agency are involved in an on-going process of evaluating the effectiveness of child support policy and operations. That goes beyond responding to external comment and advice; the agency is seeking the views of key stakeholders by means of regular meetings and it has set challenging charter standards that will be monitored carefully. Officials will continue to monitor the policy, particularly the changes introduced in April and those introduced in the Bill. In addition, the departure system will be piloted before its full introduction in order to identify and solve any unforeseen complications.
There is already considerable overlap between the functions of those who advise about child support and the tasks of a proposed child support advisory committee. In my view, the inevitable overlap would seriously hamper the effectiveness of an advisory committee in the child support field. There is simply no distinct role for a new quango such as the child support advisory committee, either in advising about areas where legislation could be improved or in monitoring the performance of the Child Support Agency.
There was an exchange across the Floor of the House in relation to a question raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms). He referred to a table that he had particular difficulty following. It would be a cheap shot if I were to say that I cannot see where his difficulty lies. I will not say that, because the table requires quite careful interpretation. Once the hon. Gentleman spots the key, he will find it easy to understand; but one needs to spot the key first. I shall try to assist the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who may wish to examine the table in more detail.
The table seeks to illustrate the total number of parents with care—488,000—and to show how many of them are in receipt of benefit. That figure comprises the 391,000 parents with care who are on income support, 63,600 on family credit and 33,400 who receive no benefit. The table then relates each of those figures to the absent parents and their benefit status. For example, of the 391,000 parents with care who are on income support, 77,800 absent parents receive income support, 18,200 are on invalidity benefit,

138,900 are not on benefit and for 156,100 the benefit status is unknown. That is how the table works: it seeks to relate parents with care to the benefit status of absent parents. The benefit status of absent parents is the column on the right and the parent-with-care column is on the left. I must admit that I can see where the hon. Gentleman's confusion lies at first glance. However, I hope that I have made the situation a little clearer. If he wishes to take up the matter with me later, I shall explain it further.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East raised some questions in relation to protected income and the like. He did not give me previous notice of the figures, which I shall examine. I make it clear that protected income is designed to ensure that there is adequate support for the absent parent and his family. That is not the element that ensures that he is better off in work; the element that ensures that the absent parent is better off in work is the amount over and above that element which is built into the formula to make sure that the parent is not simply existing on benefit. The marginal deduction rate is not as high as 100 per cent. when one adds in that figure—it is something like 85 per cent. That is a high figure, but it is not the 100 per cent. figure that the hon. Gentleman cited. I will examine the figures that he has cited tonight and give him a full answer.
The fact that those questions can be asked and answered by the agency and by Department of Social Security Ministers together with the other equipment that is already built into the system to monitor and control the operations of the Child Support Agency demonstrate that there are enough mechanisms to deal with any queries. The House seeks to ensure that the system works. After two and a half years of live running, we know much more than we knew at the start of the process. Hon. Members have said many times that those who have established agencies similar to ours in other countries have faced similar difficulties. One cannot know a great deal until one gets started.
We are now determined to make sure that the system works better and more efficiently in order to deal with the problems that our constituents raise. I take each problem extremely seriously and the monitoring process to which hon. Members contribute is extremely important to the future of the agency. I ask hon. Members to recognise the monitoring equipment that is already in place and to accept my assurances that an extra committee is not necessary. I ask the House to reject new clause 4.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in trying to deal with the various points that I raised. Even when offered the key, I still find the table somewhat complex. The Minister will be glad to know that he has helped me; he will be able to enter the field of education after the next election if he does not wish to return to his solicitor's office—we dream dreams. I now understand that parents with care are in the first column of the table and that that column is then broken down across the other four columns. I am glad that I now understand the table.

Mr. Burt: No charge.

Mr. Dewar: I am sure that there is no charge. I pay taxes which help to pay the wages of the civil servants who instruct the Minister. I do not need to feel at all guilty. I will not continue this rather informal conversation as I am sure that it would test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am still unclear as to where in the table we find those parents with care who work. The Minister says sotto voce that there are "very few". The benefit status of 203,000 absent parents is not known. Does that figure include parents who work? Presumably, quite a number of absent parents are in employment. That seems to be of interest.

Mr. Burt: The whole point of the statistics relating to the parents with care is to emphasise that more than 90 per cent. of parents with care who are in the system are in receipt of benefit. That is a measure of the extent of the burden being carried by the community at large, and of why a contribution from absent parents to improve the position of those parents with care is so desperately needed. It was one of the major reasons why the agency was set up in the first place.

Mr. Dewar: I am tempted to say that that sounds like a good argument for a disregard, but that would relate to the previous amendment and I must not stray into that.
I assume that there must be a number of absent parents in work. Presumably, they appear in the "benefit status not known" column, which seems a little odd as the figure is so high.
The mysteries can be pursued at another level and on another basis. I remain unconvinced by the Minister's arguments. I recognise, however, that quangos are not popular and that Governments introduce quangos, advisory bodies, non-departmental public bodies and so on only when there is a clear case and a clear need for them. I began by saying that I thought that it was a special case and the somewhat arcane discussion about parliamentary answers was an attempt to establish that. It could probably be more effectively established by the cries of pain from the many people who feel ill-used by the system. Some of them may have a special point of view, but there is no doubt that there is still a perception of injustice about, and that alone would have merited at least consideration of the committee proposed in the new clause.
The Minister, however, possibly because he wishes to be at one with his senior colleague, has hardened his heart. I was touched by his assurance that he supported everything that the Secretary of State did. I believe that politicians ought to have two personae. Inevitably, one has to support loyalties and collective decisions, but one should not commit oneself heart and soul laminated to one's senior colleague, however admirable one may consider him to be. I shall not inquire into quite how admirable the Minister thinks the Secretary of State is, but it seemed that a moral absolute was being proclaimed that will do the Minister's reputation no good.
The Under-Secretary of State has always been seen as a little wet and well intentioned. Although it may be an embarrassment within the Department, it stands him in good stead, at least with public opinion, and he should not sacrifice it too easily.
In any event, I have listened to the arguments and I do not wish to divide the House. We can return to the matter on another occasion, and no doubt we shall do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) said, I do not believe for a moment that this is the last time that we shall debate the Child Support Act. I am certain that we shall return to it many more times

and I look forward to that pleasure. No doubt the Minister, having noted we are not taking the matter to a vote will note that amendment No. 20 on the Secretary of State's list had better be deleted.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule 1

DEPARTURE DIRECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 24, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert—

'8.—(1) Regulations may provide for two or more departure applications with respect to the same current assessment to be considered together.

(2) A child support appeal tribunal considering—

(a) a departure application referred to it under section 28D(1)(b), or
(b) an appeal under section 28H,

may consider it at the same time as hearing an appeal under section 20 in respect of the current assessment, if it considers that to be appropriate.'.—[Mr. Burt.]

Clause 6

DEPARTURE DIRECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 5, line 21, leave out from '(1)' to 'the' in line 22.

Mr. Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 5, line 23, after 'State', insert—

'(a) shall give a departure direction, if he is satisfied that the case is one which falls within the provisions relating to child care costs as set out in paragraph 1A of Part I of Schedule 4B; or
(b)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 5, in page 5, line 25, after 'in', insert
'paragraphs 2 to 4 of'.
No. 6, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsections (2) and (3) below shall not apply to departure directions relating to child care costs to be made in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1)(a) above and paragraph 1A of Schedule 4B.'.
No. 7, in page 5, line 47, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, make provision as to the circumstances in which he would have just cause to decline to make a departure direction under the provisions of paragraph 1A of Schedule 4B.'.
No. 8, in schedule 2, page 25, line 12, at end insert—'Child care expenses—
1A. Unless the Secretary of State can show just cause to do otherwise, on the application of a person with care, a departure direction shall be given with respect to expenses of the applicant necessarily incurred to provide child care required to enable the applicant to take up, or remain in, full-time or part-time employment, which were not, and could not have been, taken into account in determining the current assessment in accordance with the provisions of, or made under, Part I of Schedule 1.'.
No. 9, in page 27, line 21, leave out 'special'.
No. 10, in page 27, line 22, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 1A or'.
No. 11, in schedule 3, page 29, line 30, after 'insert" ', insert '28F(3A),'.

Mr. Bradley: The amendment relates to schedule 2, entitled "Departure Directions". Although we welcome the main thrust of the Bill, to introduce departure


directions for special cases, the amendment seeks to include the cost of child care in the six-point menu of items in schedule 2 that identifies the special expenses that can be used by absent parents, and also by parents with care, to seek a departure direction.
The amendment specifies the parent with care, but it could apply equally to the absent parent. Throughout our deliberations on the Bill, we have always tried to strike a balance between the interests of parents with care and the so-called absent parent, and amendment No. 39 attempts to strike that balance on a measure that may be used, particularly by the parent with care, for the departure direction.
7.15 pm
Throughout the passage of the Bill, we recognised that the emphasis should remain on the formula for the maintenance assessments and that the departure direction should be used only in special cases. However, we do not believe that adding child care costs undermines that principle. It could be argued that the items already in the menu of special expenses are more likely to be used by the absent parents, whereas child care costs are more relevant to the parent with care; therefore, the amendment represents another attempt to redress the balance between those competing interests and to introduce equity and fairness to the departure direction system.
There are many reasons why the Government should accept the amendment. It is clear from our debates earlier today that they consider that the most appropriate way to alleviate family poverty is for the lone parent to return to work, hence the arguments behind their rejection of the child maintenance disregard and their proposal to introduce the child maintenance bonus. However, it seems to us that they want it both ways by denying the fact that child care costs are a significant element in a decision to return to work. If the Government were consistent in their argument that the best way to alleviate poverty is for people to return to work, they should examine every possibility of enhancing that opportunity, and particular to that is the need to take into account child care costs in the departure formula.
It is a similar argument to one that the Government rightly accepted—that travel-to-work costs should provide a ground for departure, in addition to the provision currently available in the formula. The argument of trying to avoid work disincentives, and even to increase incentives, applies to child care costs in the same way as it does to travel-to-work costs, which the Government accepted.
The issues raised by the amendment were well explored in Committee, when the Government set out their objections to the proposal, but, as we made quite clear in Committee, that did not stop our attempts to change the Government's mind. We hope that they gave the matter further consideration in the period between the end of our deliberations in Committee and those on Report and that, on reflection, they consider it relevant to include child care costs in the list of special expenses.
It will be worth while briefly exploring the Government's reasons for rejection. It was never clear in Committee how the definitive list of six items in the special expenses list was determined. Schedule 2 shows them as the costs incurred in travelling to work; costs incurred by an absent parent in maintaining contact with the child; costs attributable to a long-term illness or

disability of the applicant or of a dependant of the applicant; debts incurred before the absent parent became an absent parent in relation to a child with respect to whom the current assessment was made, with significant amendments; pre-1993 financial commitments from which it is impossible for the parent concerned to withdraw or from which it would be unreasonable for the parent to withdraw; and costs incurred by a parent in supporting a child who is not his child but who is part of his family.
I would be grateful if the Minister will elaborate on the basis on which those items were chosen. What research was undertaken on those exclusions—and of child care costs, for them to be specifically excluded from the departure direction? The Minister said in Committee that there was considerable research. I hope that he will provide further information tonight.
The Government claim that an addition for child care costs would have little effect on the overall assessment. Many organisations, including the Law Society and Child Poverty Action Group, believe that pre-empts the way in which regulations may be framed and departure officers handle individual cases. The purpose of the appeal for departure is surely to consider special expenses in the context of the whole individual case, to ensure fairness to both parties. When the departure procedure is used, it is important to give genuine consideration to special expenses. There should be the opportunity for both parties to include child care costs.
The Government argue that child care costs are already represented by various components of the formula, and for family credit payments in the calculation of the benefit. Our amendment provides for taking into account only costs not already covered by the formula. Those matters are debateable and, as we pointed out in Committee, need to be clarified in the regulations. Although part or all of the adult personal allowance of £46.50 is included at the first step of the formula, only one quarter of persons with care receive that amount. The final level of the assessment and the family's disposable income, including any benefits received, are the relevant factors. We ranged over that aspect in some detail in Committee. The Minister held to the view that the £46.50 allowance was the contribution to child care costs. In fact, only elements of child care costs appear in the final assessment and they should be taken into account more significantly, by allowing the departure direction to include them.
The proportion of the £46.50 received bears little relationship to the child care costs of the parent with care. In Committee, the Government made great play of the child care component in family credit. Although we welcome that, there is strong evidence that the maximum payable has little relationship to real child care costs. I know that the Government will study the effect of the child care disregard in family credit, but I hope that, since Committee, the Minister has examined more carefully the wide variety of child care costs.
In many ways, the amount available through family credit does not meet the real costs. At this stage, we are asking only for those elements to be kept under review, and for a proper assessment of the way in which amounts in family credit are applied to child care costs—taking into account in the average figures the fact that many people make informal child care arrangements with other family members and friends, which rather skews the


information available to help provide the amount of money needed for genuine child care, so that parents with care have the opportunity to return to work, as the Government insist that they do. Departure should be used in cases where the standard formula does not reflect the needs or expenses of a particular family. We hope that the Government will include child care costs in special expenses.
One of the Government's aims is to help lone parents to take employment, by providing a floor of maintenance on which to build. The current formula acts as a disincentive to increasing hours or wages above a certain limit, when the income of the parent with care begins to reduce the maintenance payable. That is surely contrary to the scheme's intention and is particularly damaging to parents for whom child care costs represent a significant proportion of take-home wages. The amendment would ameliorate that effect and, coupled with other measures, would help to increase the disposable income of families in work.
Although we have attempted, as always, to be constructive during the passage of the Bill, in an attempt to restore public confidence in the agency, we met with few concessions in Committee. The argument for child care costs commanded support from all Opposition parties, and it would have a significant impact on furthering the Government's intention to alleviate family poverty. If lone parents' proper child care costs are met, that would allow them to go back to work. I hope that the Government will consider carefully how our proposal harmonises most effectively with other special expenses—particularly travel-to-work costs. The amendment would go a significant way towards redressing the balance between absent parents and parents with care, introduce further equity into the system and restore further public confidence in the agency.

Ms Lynne: The Minister opposed the maintenance disregard because he felt that lone parents ought to be encouraged to go back to work. This group of amendments would help lone parents to do that, but they deal with the parent without care as well. The formula is inflexible, but the proposal would free it up just a little. The Minister has acknowledged that there are problems with the Child Support Act 1991, as he has already brought forward departures in certain areas. The principle has been established, for instance, in travel-to-work costs. The Government have also recognised the principle in other social security legislation, particularly in the provisions on family credit. I know that family credit child care costs are not enough and do not nearly meet the real costs of child care, but the principle has been established there.
The amendments seek to add a further departure. They propose that child care costs for the lone parent and for the so-called absent parent are taken into account. There is no difference between the costs in this group of amendments and travel-to-work costs. The amendments have been introduced to enable the parent with care to get back into work.
7.30 pm
If no child care is available, that parent will not be able to go back to work. It stands to reason that, if child care costs are not met, there is no way in which parents can

start working again. So-called absent parents have difficulties because their child care costs are not taken into account when their assessment is made. The amendment would also encourage them to work.
Often, those people have a second family, and both parents are working. Child care costs must be taken into account. It is only fair to treat the parent with care and the parent without care equally. The parent without care would be able to pay the assessed maintenance. The amendment would enable the parent with care to take up work and to get off benefit. Surely that is what the Government have been talking about. The amendment would help people to do that.
The main reasons why lone parents—parents with care—do not work is that they cannot find work or there is nothing that they can do for their children. They do not have relatives around or friends who can look after their child at no cost. If they could employ a child minder to look after that child, they could go back into the work force. That would help not only them but the absent parent.
The Minister says that he wants to lift parents out of poverty. The amendment is a way to do it. I urge him not to reject it yet again. He rejected it in Committee and he keeps rejecting it, but he cannot reject the maintenance disregard and child care costs. It does not make sense. As I said, the proposal affects not only the parent with care but the parent without care. We need a child care cost departure to enable parents to work if they want to.
I am asking not for an automatic right to child care costs but for an application for departure. I am not saying that, if a parent with care has a highly paid job and expensive child care costs, those should be met; of course they should not. It would not be reasonable to expect them to be met within the maintenance formula.
As the Minister accepts, the majority of lone parents are on income support and cannot get back into the work place, so the floodgates will not be opened by the amendment, but it will help those who want to work. I stress again: surely that is what the Government want.
We must avoid the situation where people are better off out of work. If the Minister did not agree to the amendments, he would be accepting the principle that people were better off out of work. I hope that he will change his mind and agree to the amendments.

Mr. Stevenson: In arguing for this element to be considered for departure, we aim to instil a further degree of fairness in the starting point, otherwise the whole system becomes the subject of further suspicion. The inclusion of child care costs would enhance that aim. As has been stated, in the main such costs are borne by lone parents. The Government may be worried that accepting the proposal will open the floodgates, but I do not believe that that will happen.
Many lone parents are not employed, but research shows that, of those lone parents who are employed, about 29 per cent. have the additional burden of child care costs—not an insignificant figure, so we are considering an important issue. Particularly for lone parents on low disposable incomes, those costs are not a marginal issue, but an extremely important one. Some would argue that it is a vital issue.
I find it a little perplexing that the Government seem to have accepted travel-to-work costs as grounds for departure, yet they resist child care costs. Travel-to-work


costs as grounds for departure are in addition to existing provision. I assume that the motivation behind that is to avoid work disincentives. Surely the arguments apply equally to child care costs.
The Government seem to object to the addition on the ground that it may have little effect on overall assessments. At the very least, that argument pre-empts the form any regulations may take and the discretion that may be used by the departure officer.
The Government argue in terms of cost and say that child care costs are represented already in the components contained in the present formula. From reading the amendment, I understand that it is concerned with costs that are not covered by the present formula. The Government may feel that the amendment duplicates what is already there, but it does not.
If the Government were prepared to concede the amendment, there would be a need for clarification in the regulations—that is accepted—but it is the principle that is vital, and hon. Members have already referred to that. The final level of the assessment and disposable income, including benefits, are important factors in the equation. The current formula is a disincentive to work, because wages above a certain level become a penalty. Surely that is contrary to the Government's stated policies and objectives. The addition of child care costs to the disregard system would not, therefore, be contrary to what the Government are arguing for. It would enhance their objectives. It is also consistent with similar changes that they have made in other sectors, such as family benefit, and with the travel-to-work costs element, which, in certain circumstances, would be subject to the disregard.

Mr. Wicks: I am in favour of the proposal for departure, which in this instance means to take out of account child care costs. It is a modest proposal in many respects but it could be important, especially for mothers in one-parent families, or for fathers who are caring for their children.
We talked earlier about the Government's clear strategy to encourage more and more one-parent families away from dependence on income support into independence in the labour market. We had a quarrel about how maintenance disregard might fit into that strategy, but many of my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that if so many families, including many children, are to be moved out of poverty, it must be via jobs and, we hope, high-quality jobs. That is why child care is so important.
We need to think through the implications of the Government's strategy and our arguments about child care, which have been so ably advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) from the Opposition Front Bench. At present, there are many formidable barriers to one-parent families on income support who wish to seek independence. Those who think that we must shift resources in social policy away from family breakdown services—I regard income support as essentially a family breakdown service—towards investment so that people move from dependency towards independence must recognise the barriers standing in the way of one-parent families.
Unfortunately, those barriers are formidable. They include, of course, low wages. Many of us would argue that the Government have enabled lower wages to be paid, which has led to social security chickens, in terms of costs, coming home to roost. That is one reason why the

social security budget is at a record level. That has resulted not because we are a more socially secure society—that is not why we are spending more on state benefits—but because we are now a more socially insecure society. That is the paradox at the heart of the Government's social policies.
There is the low wages barrier and, for one-parent families, there is the means testing barrier. A Government who have lived by means testing will die by it because of their failure successfully to pursue the strategy of moving one-parent families into the independence of the labour market. Unfortunately, that policy has been unsuccessful. We know that in one year only 8,000 one-parent families moved off income support because of the child support element. It is necessary to repeat the same statistic. We know that seven out of 10 one-parent families are dependent on income support. The means-test mountain is a formidable barrier to independence. Indeed, it is a mountain that most one-parent families fail to climb, often because it is impossible to do so.
That brings me to the other barrier of child care. We are all aware of the relevant arithmetic. One-parent families that are seeking work—many would seek part-time work because, like other mothers, or parents generally, that is the only way in which they can make sense of their dual responsibilities within the family and in employment—are aware that wages for part-time work or, indeed, for full-time work, are only slightly in excess of the moneys that they would receive through income support. The extra moneys are eaten up if it is necessary to pay for child care. That is why the amendment is vital. I am surprised that we are having to make such heavy weather of the arguments that lie behind it, given that we are trying to help the Government implement their strategy of moving people back into the labour market.
Let us concede that the Government's policy, as announced in their Budget a year or two back, of allowing for a child care element in family credit is to be welcomed. In a sense, we are trying to pursue the logic of their policy. I should emphasise that we are talking about quality child care, not child care per se. If we are to provide more assistance for all parents, not only one-parent families, we must recognise that the best social policies apply to all families. We must understand that many parents may have to sort out the problem for themselves by providing a lower quality of child care than many of us would accept for our children. That is my worry.
We must at some stage switch the debate from child care to quality of care. If we fail to do so, I predict that we shall soon hear about more cases of children not being looked after properly, and sometimes being neglected or abused because parents were not able to afford adequate child care. Let us not go for child care on the cheap. That is not always better than no child care.
The Minister may now agree that the arguments in support of a modest proposal for a departure for child care costs fit into the logic behind what the Government are claiming that they are trying to do. We, too, would like more one-parent families, if they choose to take the course, to be more independent in the labour market, and enabled to be independent by a range of training and employment measures, a parcel into which child care fits as a crucial element.

Mr. Burt: Opposition Members have proposed that persons with care responsibilities should be able to seek a departure direction where they necessarily incur child care costs in taking up or remaining in employment. I appreciate their comments. I refer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and his colleagues and to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). The hon. Lady has so far resisted the requests of the hon. Member for Withington to enlighten us by setting out her alternative to the child support system that we are discussing. She has had several opportunities to present it to us. There is still time, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Withington and I share the view that it would be interesting to consider it in more detail later. In the meantime, we must await her alternative with bated breath.
As hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will appreciate, I understand the sentiments that lie behind this flawed amendment. The Government share the objective of improving work opportunities for women with children. That is why we have introduced the child care disregard in the in-work benefits, such as family credit, disability working allowance and housing benefit, and in council tax benefit, which was introduced in October.
The hon. Member for Withington asked why we decided to opt for certain expenditures in the departure system and not others. After some consideration of the way in which the child support system works, we accepted that one of the flaws was perhaps that the system was too rigid and that there should be room for an element of discretion within it.
We made it clear throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee—I think that to a great extent we were joined by Opposition Members—that if the system was to work properly, it was important to keep the gateways reasonably tight at first for the departure system. After due consideration, we decided that it will always be possible to extend the gateways. Once an opportunity has been created, it is always extremely difficult to restrict it or to bring it to an end. If the discretionary system, coupled with the system in which the majority of us—beyond the hon. Member for Rochdale and her colleagues—believe, is to work and the formula is to work in the majority of cases, it is important that the element of departure should now be relatively tight.
We considered carefully where the greatest pressure points were to be found in the system before coming to a decision on the expenses that we should allow, and that the hon. Member for Withington enumerated. We trawled carefully the representations that were made by constituents through their Members in correspondence. We considered carefully what was being said to us by various organisations. During our review, which took place largely in the autumn, we examined as carefully as we could the various pressure points.
The list of special expenses that we propose to allow reflects the consideration that I have described. With the exception of one or two interested groups and fairly recent interest, the issue of child care for parents with care responsibilities was not a serious one when compared with the clean-break argument or travel expenses, for example. All Members will remember the representations that they received on those matters. I ask them to consider whether the same pressure was raised on child care costs for parents with care responsibilities. I have to say that

that was not my experience and I do not really feel that similar pressure was there. Given the amount of concern, we felt it unnecessary to include those costs in a scheme that was primarily intended as a safety valve to relieve the areas of greatest pressure.

Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister give me an assurance that the research that he undertook included groups representing the so-called "absent parent" as well as the parent with care, because quite clearly the child care cost may refer more reasonably to the parent with care and less so to the so-called absent parent?

Mr. Burt: Yes, of course. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, representations in relation to child support come from all sides, but often the interests of the parties are quite different. A number of the cases where departure was argued for by those representing the so-called absent parent would be diametrically opposed to the interests of the parents with care. The Government understand that, because, peculiarly—almost uniquely—one of the aims of the system that the Government have set up is to hold the ring between those competing interests. I shall refer to that point later. We received representations from all sides.
As I made clear from the start in Committee, and as the Government have made clear from the beginning of the reform process, the departure system is genuinely designed to deal with the issues that have been of major concern since the Child Support Act 1991 came into operation. It is not our intention to allow any conceivable expense to be cited as grounds for a departure order. To do so would be to run the risk of there being a return to a discretion-based free-for-all.
We believe quite strongly that the current legislation already makes some provision for child care costs. If I may, I shall explain this again briefly to the House. The first step in assessing liability under the formula assessment is to calculate what is known as the "maintenance requirement". That is the amount calculated as representing the basic needs of a child and is based on income support rates. The maintenance requirement includes an amount in respect of the fact that a child needs to be cared for. The carer element is currently £46.50 if the youngest child is under 11 years of age. That compares well with the average cost to families of professional child care of some £42.40 a week. The carer element is designed to cover either the parent with care's own cost if she stays at home and provides care, or the cost of providing for that care if she chooses to work. Thus, the formula already makes a significant contribution towards any child care that may be incurred.
We believe that we have already provided significant help towards child care costs and not just through the benefit system, although of course the changes made to family credit last year are a genuine development of the policy, which we all share, towards assisting women who want to go back into work. Where a working person with care is eligible for family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit or council tax benefit, costs of up to £40 a week can be disregarded in assessing entitlement to those benefits. The combined effect of those allowances means that working parents can be better off by up to £38.20 a week. We have now seen some 17,000 claims to family credit under that particular system.
I should also point out that those benefits allow for the disregard of the first £15 of maintenance received. That is in addition to the child care disregard and may be used towards the cost of child care, where such costs are incurred.
One can go wider. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), who is always thoughtful and always well worth listening to on family issues, asked about the Government's policy and intention. Scattered across the system now—from the Department of Employment, the Department of Social Security and through to the Department of Health—is a whole variety of provision for child care costs, on a level unheard of under any previous Government. It is a great determination that we have and I believe that the contribution and support that we are giving, from tax relief to the expansion of day nurseries, is really quite substantial.

Mr. Wicks: I am grateful to the Minister. Has the Department done any computer modelling recently to allow not only for the support that the Government are now giving through family credit, as the Minister said, but the likely wages that mothers might receive in either part-time or full-time work, to see what the net gain to those mothers would be if they returned to the labour market?

Mr. Burt: The Department carries out a large amount of modelling, but I do not have that model with me at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the barrier caused to progress through low pay. As he knows, we would consider an even greater barrier to low pay to be that of no job whatever, which a minimum wage—the policy of the hon. Gentleman and his party—would introduce. If he is seriously concerned about that issue, that is something that he must bear in mind. I believe that the deputy leader of the Labour party has already recognised that. Therefore, I do not accept the need for the amendments. The carer element in the formula and the maintenance and child care disregards in family credit provide sufficient help for those expenses.
There is a further point, which I must raise as it concerns perhaps a slightly greater flaw than anything else. Uniquely, in the list of special expenses, it seems that the Opposition's amendment would make departure mandatory, in that the normal just and equitable provisions, which are there for the special expenses, appear to have been excluded. It is a serious and important point. I am not saying this dismissively. Under the amendment, the Secretary of State, unless he has just cause to rule it out, should otherwise allow it. The hon. Gentleman made a point of saying that, because he was tailoring it to any costs not covered by the formula, only in cases where a higher amount of child care costs had been incurred would the special allowance and departure be considered. The mandatory element of the amendment suggests that, providing that a parent with care could come along and show that she was genuinely incurring virtually any child care costs that she was prepared to put before the tribunal, the mandatory element of the amendment would require it to be taken into account and awarded, with the burden falling on an absent parent.

Mr. Bradley: If that is the only argument against the amendment—I accept the technical flaw—and if the Minister will accept the principle of including child care costs, I would accept a redrafted amendment tabled in the Lords.

Mr. Burt: That was a good attempt to deal with one of the two major flaws of the argument, but not, alas, the second, which was what I referred to earlier: our contention that the child care element is there.
I shall return now, if I may, to the point that I made right at the start about holding the ring and holding the balance. It is wholly laudatory for the Government to attempt in a variety of different ways to ease the transition of women back into work. I maintain that the Government seek to do that not only through the element in the formula or through the family credit disregard but in a variety of other provisions as well. However, the provision would place an extra unbalanced burden on the absent parent. We are holding the ring here. We are already asking the absent parent to make a contribution to child care through the formula. To ask the absent parent to make a further contribution to child care—double provision—does not seem to us to be right.
It is correct, therefore, to try to ensure the ability of women to go back into work, and we seek to do that in a variety of ways. It is for the Government to find ways to do that, and we shall continue to do so. It seems to me that the way to do that is not through this provision. It is not through an extra burden on the absent parent or through an extra mandatory requirement. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for the response from the Minister, although, clearly, I am disappointed that he has not accepted the arguments that I and my hon. Friends have made in support of including child care costs in the departure formula.
As has been clearly pointed out, it was a particularly modest proposal. We accept the principle that the formula should be used in the majority of cases, but the amendment proposed that the departure direction should be used only in special cases, and it was our intention—as it was in Committee—to retain responsibility for that by not including a whole range of options in the departure formula. For that very reason, we specifically moved amendments in Committee that included training elements and child care costs. It was not our intention at any stage to use that procedure to open up the floodgates to allow everyone to apply for departure. We were looking specifically at a matter that we think is of major concern, particularly to the parents with care.
We believe that the way in which the departure directions will be used will be of particular advantage to absent parents: I do not argue with that. We are, however, trying to introduce equity and fairness by including child care costs—particularly for parents with care—in the departure formula. Throughout our deliberations, we have tried to strike that balance, to ensure that all parties involved in the agency's operations retain confidence in the system through the introduction of the appeals system that we have discussed—a system that has been requested by the Opposition throughout our proceedings on the Bill. We are disappointed that the Government are not prepared to accept our modest proposal. I feel that the views of the House should be tested, and I urge it to divide on the amendment.

8 pm

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 261.

Division No. 154]
[8.01 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Godman, Dr Norman A


Ainger, Nick
Golding, Mrs Llin


Allen, Graham
Gordon, Mildred


Alton, David
Graham, Thomas


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Austin-Walker, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Grocott, Bruce


Barnes, Harry
Gunnell, John


Barron, Kevin
Hain, Peter


Battle, John
Hall, Mike


Bayley, Hugh
Hanson, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Harvey, Nick


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bell, Stuart
Henderson, Doug


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Heppell, John


Berry, Roger
Hinchliffe, David


Bradley, Keith
Hodge, Margaret


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Burden, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Byers, Stephen
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Caborn, Richard
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Callaghan, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell-Savours, D N
Ingram, Adam


Cann, Jamie
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Jamieson, David


Chidgey, David
Janner, Greville


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jowell, Tessa


Coffey, Ann
Keen, Alan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Khabra, Piara S


Corston, Jean
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cummings, John
Lewis, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Livingstone, Ken


Dafis, Cynog
Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)


Dalyell, Tam
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian


Denham, John
Macdonald, Calum


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McNamara, Kevin


Eagle, Ms Angela
MacShane, Denis


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Enright, Derek
Maddock, Diana


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mandelson, Peter


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Flynn, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Don (Bath)
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Michael, Alun


Fraser, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fyfe, Maria
Milburn, Alan


Galloway, George
Miller, Andrew


Garrett, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


George, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Gerrard, Neil
Morley, Elliot





Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Short, Clare


Mudie, George
Simpson, Alan


Mullin, Chris
Skinner, Dennis


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Snape, Peter


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Spearing, Nigel


O'Hara, Edward
Spellar, John


Olner, Bill
Steinberg, Gerry


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stevenson, George


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Stott, Roger


Pickthall, Colin
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pike, Peter L
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Timms, Stephen


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Primarolo, Dawn
Touhig, Don


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dennis


Quin, Ms Joyce
Tyler, Paul


Radice, Giles
Vaz, Keith


Randall, Stuart
Walley, Joan


Raynsford, Nick
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rendel, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Worthington, Tony


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ruddock, Joan



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Churchill, Mr


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arbuthnot, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Congdon, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bates, Michael
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Booth, Hartley
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Duncan, Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brandreth, Gyles
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Sir Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Elletson, Harold


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burt, Alistair
Evennett, David


Butcher, John
Faber, David


Butterfill, John
Fabricant, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)






Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forth, Eric
Malone, Gerald


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mans, Keith


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marland, Paul


French, Douglas
Marlow, Tony


Fry, Sir Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gallie, Phil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mates, Michael


Garnier, Edward
Merchant, Piers


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gillan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorst, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hague, William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steve


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hannam, Sir John
Ottaway, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Harris, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Haselhurst, Alan
Pawsey, James


Hawkins, Nick
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hawksley, Warren
Pickles, Eric


Hayes, Jerry
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heald, Oliver
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Hendry, Charles
Rathbone, Tim


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Riddick, Graham


Horam, John
Robathan, Andrew


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jack, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shersby, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Sims, Roger


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Key, Robert
Soames, Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spink, Dr Robert


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spring, Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sproat, Iain


Knox, Sir David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Steen, Anthony


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stephen, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Stem, Michael


Lidington, David
Stewart, Allan


Lightbown, David
Streeter, Gary


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sweeney, Walter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Sykes, John


Lord, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Luff, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Maclean, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thomason, Roy


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Madel, Sir David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)





Thumham, Peter
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whitney, Ray


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Whittingdale, John


Tracey, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Trend, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Trotter, Neville
Wilkinson, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilshire, David


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Noes:


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Wells, Bowen
Mr David Willetts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 5, line 23, leave out 'such a' and insert 'a departure'.

No. 14, in page 5, line 30, leave out 'the proposed' and insert 'a departure'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Schedule 2

DEPARTURE DIRECTIONS: THE CASES AND CONTROLS

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 26, line 8, leave out 'the commitment was' and insert 'they were'.
No. 28, in page 26, line 19, after 'and' insert 'either'.
No. 29, in page 26, line 20, after 'made' insert
'or the child, or any of the children, with respect to whom that assessment was made'.
No. 30, in page 26, line 21, leave out 'between them'.
No. 31, in page 26, line 21, after 'kind' insert
'between the absent parent and any of those persons'.
No. 32, in page 26, line 23, leave out 'made between them'.
No. 33, in page 26, line 27, leave out 'is' and insert 'was'.
No. 34, in page 26, line 38, at end insert—
'.—(1) A departure direction may be given if—

(a) before 5th April 1993—

(i) a court order of a prescribed kind was in force with respect to the absent parent and either the person with care with respect to whom the current assessment was made or the child, or any of the children, with respect to whom that assessment was made; or
(ii) an agreement of a prescribed kind between the absent parent and any of those persons was in force;

(b) in pursuance of the court order or agreement, the absent parent has made one or more transfers of property of a prescribed kind;
(c) the amount payable by the absent parent by way of maintenance was not reduced as a result of that transfer or those transfers;
(d) the amount payable by the absent parent by way of child support maintenance under the current assessment has been reduced as a result of that transfer or those transfers, in accordance with provisions of or made under this Act; and
(e) it is nevertheless inappropriate, having regard to the purposes for which the transfer or transfers was or were made, for that reduction to have been made.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c), "maintenance" means periodical payments of maintenance made (otherwise than under this Act) with respect to the child, or any of the children, with respect to whom the current assessment was made.'.— [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 8

APPEALS

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 7, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 39.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 10

THE CHILD MAINTENANCE BONUS

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 9, line 19, after 'treating' insert 'the whole or'.
No. 17, in page 9, line 26, after 'paid' insert
'in such circumstances as may be prescribed'.
No. 18, in page 9, line 26, leave out 'entitled to the bonus' and insert
'who is or had been in receipt of child maintenance'.— [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 12

REVIEWS ON CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 11, line 6, after 'subsection (6)' insert '—
(a)'.
No. 20, in page 11, line 7, at end insert—
'(b) after "maintenance assessment" insert "by reference to the circumstances of the case as at the date of the application under this section" '.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 14

CANCELLATION OF MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS ON REVIEW

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 11, line 28, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 30 and insert
'maintenance assessment in question was not validly made he may cancel it with effect from the date on which it took effect." '.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 19

NON-REFERRAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 15, line 14, after 'shall' insert 'subject to subsection (1B)'.
No. 23, in page 15, line 15, leave out from beginning to 'shall', in line 17 and insert—
'(1B) If it appears to the Secretary of State that subsection (10) of section 4 would not have prevented the person with care concerned from making an application for a maintenance assessment under that section he shall—

(a) notify her of the effect of this subsection, and
(b) if, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice was sent to her, she asks him to do so, treat the application as having been made not under section 6 but under section 4.


(1C) Where the application is not preserved under subsection (1B) (and so is treated as not having been made) the Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Clause 21

FEES FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTS

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 16, line 22, leave out from 'made' to 'is', in line 24, and insert 'or a maintenance assessment'.
Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State to recover from alleged parents those fees for DNA tests which the Secretary of State previously paid in connection with a paternity dispute. The amendment fulfils a commitment that I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) in Committee, and allows recovery to be made in cases where benefit is not an issue as well as in benefit cases.
In relation to paternity, Opposition Members suggested that we should introduce a presumption of parentage on marriage in disputed paternity cases in England and Wales, similar to that which applies in Scotland. They also moved an amendment so that a declaration of parentage by the courts would have effect for any other proceedings involving the qualifying child.
On the face of it, both those proposals have merit, but the implications are far reaching and could affect other areas of law, such as adoption and surrogacy, registration of births, parental responsibility, immigration and residence and contact issues. These matters will need to be fully considered by several Departments.
The Lord Chancellor has general policy responsibility for family law issues, and I am pleased to say that he has agreed to take forward a consultation exercise on both those matters. Such an exercise may involve public consultation, and could clearly not be concluded in time for any changes in the law to be introduced in the current Bill. However, it will establish the need for and the desirability of making the changes suggested by Opposition Members as and when the opportunity arises. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to our amendments in Committee. They recognised that there may be a need for wider consultation not only within Departments but with the wider public. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has now got agreement through the Lord Chancellor for such a procedure to be undertaken. We shall give our views during that process, and we look forward to any subsequent amendments or changes in the legislation that may be appropriate as a result of the consultation. We welcome the Minister's statement.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26

REGULATION AND ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 21, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'order' in line 23 and insert—'
'(4) Subsection (4A) applies to—

(a) the first regulations made under section 10;
(b) any order made under section 18(5);
(c) the first regulations made under section 24.

(4A) No regulations or order to which this subsection applies shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations or'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Schedule 3

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 27, line 38, at end insert—
' "(ae) compensation payments made under regulations under section 24 of the Child Support Act 1995 or under any corresponding enactment having effect with respect to Northern Ireland;" '.


No. 36, in page 29, line 30, after 'insert' insert '28C(2)(b), 28F(3)'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Lilley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am delighted to move the Third Reading, for a number of reasons. First, my officials inform me that this marks the 25th occasion that I have had the opportunity to debate with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—not a moment too many. None the less, despite it being the 25th such occasion, it is my maiden Third Reading speech. I have looked it up to see what is required, and I see that brevity can be of the essence. One of my predecessors managed it in two sentences. However, I have been told that I have a moment or two longer than that.
I want to use the opportunity to congratulate the Committee on the Bill's smooth passage, which reflects the cross-party support for the basic principles that underlie it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garscadden for fulfilling his promise that there would be no trench warfare because he wanted the improvements made by the Bill as much as we did.
As a non-participant, I can objectively praise the whole Committee: the Chairmen—the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks)—and the constructive contributions from Opposition Members such as the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), and especially those from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks).
Above all, I have to thank my hon. Friends the Under-Secretaries of State for taking the Bill through, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). If any one hon. Member has gained in credit, standing and esteem on both sides of the House from this fraught and rather difficult subject, it is my hon. Friend; I am immensely grateful to him for all he has done, both in the context of the Bill and before that.
I wish that I could extend my thanks and congratulations to the Liberal party, too. Despite the great personal charm of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), I am afraid that I cannot, because she has associated her party with some of the nastiest elements in British politics, and, in proposing to overthrow the Child Support Agency, has actively sought the support of the Network Against the Child Support Act and people like that. They have returned that support with delight.
I have here NACSA's latest report, which states:
There is no doubt that the Liberal Democrats are delighted with the sudden input of support for their party from NACSA supporters. Campaigners in many areas"—
that is, NACSA campaigners—
helped them during the council elections. Word from Lib Dem HQ and the ecstatic Liz Lynne is that they have already had a foot high stack of support pledges from NACSA supporters.
These are people who, a page or two later, advise people to lie and to harass. They say:
Around 150 NACSA stalwarts turned out at Brierley Hill to harass the life out of the inmates of Dudley CSAC.

The report goes on to say:
You should try and get hold of copies of the CSA business plan. Order one for yourself. Don't say you're from NACSA or whatever, try saying something like you are a welfare rights adviser. You might have better luck.
I would be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Rochdale if she wants to disassociate herself and her party from those undesirable people. However, she does not; she stands, or rather sits, condemned as a result.
I shall deal now with the basic approach of the Bill. We identified the key problem that we have faced since introducing it, and the main area of legitimate concern, as the failure to take into account fully in the formula the impact of past property settlements. That could not be permanently resolved through a formula system, although we have introduced the broad-brush approach to deal with it in the immediate future. It needed the opportunity to depart from the formula system, and that is how we decided to proceed. Primary legislation was necessary, which enabled us to introduce the departure system, and therefore to tackle a limited range of other problems which could not be covered through the formula system itself.
I welcome the fact that the official Opposition have not tried to widen the gateways too far, which would give people departures from the formula. As primary legislation was necessary, we were able also to tackle the take-on of non-benefit cases where there was a past property settlement, and to introduce the child maintenance bonus.
However, the Bill has to be seen as complementary to the secondary legislative changes which we introduced: the broad-brush element in the formula dealing with past property settlements and with travel to work; the changes dealing with housing costs where there were second families; and compensation for family credit and disability working allowance losers as a result of changes elsewhere in the formula. The most important single change introduced by secondary legislation was the 30 per cent. cap on the net income which could be taken by maintenance out of people's net income.
Those changes came in at the beginning of April, over the Easter weekend. They were introduced and implemented in a very few days. The whole operation was virtually hitch-free, and I congratulate the agency on carrying it out so smoothly. It was a massive achievement. It meant major information technology changes in the whole computer system; it meant examining some 1.25 million cases that are stored on the computer system; and it meant contacting some 675,000 customers of the agency.
As a result, about a third of those who have assessments have had their payments reduced by, on average, about £8 a week, or roughly £400 a year. Some have had reductions of as much as £22 a week as a result of the changes.
The two main causes of reduction in numerical terms are the 30 per cent. rule and the shared housing cost, spreading the cost of housing of all members of second households in a way that was not previously done by the formula.
The agency has notified everyone who might be affected that they can seek changes through the formula to reflect past property settlements or travel-to-work arrangements. So far, it has been rather underwhelmed by the response. By early May, there had been some 13,000 requests for such recognition in the formula for either property or travel-to-work expenses. Such applications have to be in by


18 July, three months after the change was introduced. There is a continual stream coming in, and I reiterate that we welcome those applications up to 18 July.
The other issue which is complementary to the primary and secondary legislation is the improvement in the agency's performance, partly as a result of regulatory changes enabling it to operate more smoothly. The success in introducing the April changes is reassuring. It was, as I say, a major change, and not everyone would have backed with their shirt the certainty of it all working out as well as it did.
I hope that hon. Members are also seeing a steady improvement in the service provided by the agency to them and their constituents. Certainly we have had far fewer complaints to the agency, far speedier replies have been going out to hon. Members, and there has been a four fifths reduction in the number of queries via the direct line compared with the peak.
I hope that the overall package of reforms that we have introduced—administrative reforms, regulatory reforms and primary legislative reforms—are working out properly. I believe that it was necessary and right to introduce them all. They have been well received outside, as well as inside, the House. The changes, I believe, have smoothed many of the rough edges which were identified in the first 18 months of experience of the agency.
The changes will mean that those with a genuine grievance will be able to seek departure from the formula. As a result, I hope that the formula used and the assessments made by the agency will be seen to be fairer, and that it will therefore be possible to obtain greater compliance with those assessments, which will be better for the parents with care, and for the taxpayer.
Overall, I believe that the changes will benefit children, parents and taxpayers, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Dewar: This debate has something of the atmosphere of a private function. I note that even the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) has come back to haunt us for a few minutes. The Secretary of State told me that this is the 25th time that we have faced each other across the Dispatch Box. It will be a somewhat shorter event than our previous exchanges. It is a curious fact that if our exchanges have become habit forming, the right hon. Gentleman could be added to the membership of the Pensions Bill Committee for its last month of sittings, which would allow him to raise the average considerably—although I doubt whether an enjoyment factor would play a prominent part.
I accept that much of what is happening is what we have requested and we are grateful for that. I know that the Bill had a constructive Committee stage. I do not pretend to have read all the Hansards, but I have tried to keep in touch with what has been happening. I am glad that the Bill has come through all its stages, although we would have liked there to have been more changes. I must stress that because I do not want to give the impression in these pleasantries that we are satisfied and that we did not look for a great deal more change.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). Who knows, some day he may get his ticket to leave. He may be allowed to leave the treadmill and move to pastures green. He certainly tholed his assize—

Mr. Piers Merchant: What is that?

Mr. Dewar: I understand that it is an English legal term. It is not one of my strange Scottish gaucheries, which occasionally trouble the Hansard reporters.
Mention has been made of the Liberal Democrat party. It is unfortunate that we have not heard a little more about its plans for an alternative to the Child Support Agency. In a few minutes, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) will have her last chance to sketch for us what I am sure must be well-advanced plans for the replacement of the current system. She has been pressed on those plans on more than one occasion, but presumably she has been waiting for the right moment. I hope that Third Reading is that moment—[Interruption.] Perhaps, at some future date, a discreet pamphlet with a pleasant typeface will emerge and explain all.
I reiterate that there is no interest among Labour Members in seeing chaos, confusion and misery arising from any social initiative. It is probably too optimistic to assume that this will be the last time that we consider the CSA. Indeed, I am anxious to stress that we will want to return to it on other occasions. It is important that the changes being introduced are worked through and introduced speedily. I hope that they will help to tackle some of the problems that have undoubtedly given rise to genuine distress about the way that the system has operated. Much will depend on the small print and the way in which the new policies are implemented.
I want to cite what may be an obvious example, but I have chosen it because it was the subject of correspondence that I was dealing with yesterday. It is the suggestion that in certain cases arrears will not be enforced for a period longer than six months. That point is important because many people have substantial arrears, often of 12 months or more. We know from the agency's figures that that is quite common. It will be important how the caveats that surround that proposition work in practice. The White Paper states:
Where the Agency causes a delay in setting maintenance, consideration will be given to not enforcing more than six months' worth of arrears, provided the absent parent gives a commitment to meet his on-going liability.
It will be interesting to find out whether that is in fact an important and significant concession or whether it is simply decoration. It is a distinction of some moment.
There is no doubt that in the past—I referred earlier to the compensation procedures for delay—what has appeared to be quite an important concession has turned out to be the merest and feeblest of gestures. I hope that that will not prove to be the case about the contents of this Bill and the other parts of the package, of which the Bill is the core component. I know that I cannot go beyond the contents of the Bill, but I wanted to make that point.
Other important changes are still to come. We have always taken the view that capital and financial settlements, which presently come into play—even on a broad-brush approach—only if they were concluded before April 1993, could, with a little imagination, be extended to future circumstances. Again, I pray in aid the system presently operating in Australia.
As the Minister rightly recognised, the centrepiece of the Bill is the provision for departure from the financial formula where circumstances justify that. I certainly did not want an open door that would tempt everyone to go to appeal and to second-guess the system and the formula. However, it is important that the hard cases—and there are still hard cases—are dealt with sympathetically, that there is a speedy response and that the process does not get bogged down and fossilised, as so often happens in Chancery courts and other corners of the legal world. I have played my part in that. I used to do a great deal of industrial tribunal work and I started out with the assumption that it revolved around the merits of the case and looking at the facts. I then discovered that the other lawyers came to the tribunals carting case law by the tome and that if I did not also do so I was likely to be bowled middle stump. I hope that we will not go down that road with this Bill.
This is an important area and there is nothing more important than trying to re-establish a degree of public confidence in the system. I do not want to go into detail on one matter that is not in the Bill, but should have been, but it is well known, and has been argued tonight, that there should be a disregard. There is something unsatisfactory about a system under which children living in families that are most financially at risk—that is, those on income support—are the least likely to benefit from maintenance. I give notice that that argument will continue, no matter how many lists the Secretary of State compiles or how often he ridicules our efforts.
I believe that we speak for the majority of people who are involved with the system and who have followed the arguments about it. It is, perhaps, one of the few arguments that unite those who are violently opposed to the system and those who have doubts about its ability to delivery effectively for the parent with care. Both extremes of the argument agree that common sense and common humanity dictate that a disregard would strengthen the present position. I shall leave it at that. We have made some little progress and it is not unfair to say that Ministers were put under considerable pressure. I hope that the House, and the Opposition in particular, had a not dishonourable role in doing that. We have seen some movement as a result. It is not the total that is required and I am sure that we will come back to the matter, but I hope that the Bill will at least do something to bring a little fairness and a perception of justice to a system that has been terribly battered by the experiences of the past two and a half years and which we all want to be established on a true and genuine basis of public confidence.

Ms Lynne: This is the last opportunity for us to debate the Bill before it goes to another place and I want to make very clear my position on it and the Child Support Act 1991, which it is supposed to amend.
The Bill does not address the real problems. Like other recent Government Bills, most notably the Disability Discrimination Bill, the Government have recognised that something needs to be done because of the extent of opposition throughout the country, but we have got half-hearted measures and that is what we have again today. Most of the Bills go some way towards a remedy, but do not cure the problem and this Bill is a case in point.
The Bill goes some way towards improving the deplorable situation in which many people—both parents with care and those without care—find themselves. Perhaps it relieves the distress a little, but it is a very small step. What we need to do and what I believe that we will do in the long term, even though we are not debating it tonight, is to repeal the 1991 Act because it will come back to the House time and again until the Government and the official Opposition recognise that that is the only way out. Then we may be able to start the process of getting a genuinely fair maintenance system.
The Government and the official Opposition—they are in collusion here—will find that opposition to the Child Support Act will not go away just because the Government have introduced the Bill and the official Opposition support them in it. The Child Support Act has not achieved its purpose—to put children first.
We all know that the Child Support Agency is in disarray. It might have got a little better recently, but it is still in disarray. The opposition is overwhelming throughout the country and has not gone away. The agency has had to defer taking on cases, to abandon other cases and to replace the chief executive. Now we have this Bill.
The Government have not learnt many lessons from what happened with the poll tax. They cannot just impose legislation on people, if it does not have their broad support, however grudging that support might be. The Child Support Act does not even have grudging support. Legislation is not generally opposed unless it is an affront to the people it affects, which is what has happened with the Child Support Act. Plenty of legislation has been unpopular, but the majority of people will abide by the law. The Government should have noted the extent of the opposition to the Child Support Act, which is almost as unpopular as the poll tax.
Many Labour Members have said that I am being opportunistic. Was it opportunistic to oppose the poll tax? We opposed it with all our strength and, after a by-election defeat, the Government decided to scrap it. The Labour party opposed it too. Perhaps new Labour would have branded opposition to the poll tax as opportunism, in the same way as my opposition to the Child Support Act is branded opportunistic. Perhaps new Labour would have supported the Government on the poll tax, as they are supporting them today, and have been during the past few months and years over the Child Support Act.

Mr. Burt: The House would listen to the hon. Lady with more interest and without such outrage and incredulity if at any stage during the past few months, while she has held her present position, she had enlightened the Standing Committee or the House with any alternative, but we have heard nothing and I suspect that we will hear nothing more. She rightly coined the term opportunism because I am afraid that until now that is all that we have heard.

Ms Lynne: I cannot say that I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. He should have listened to what I have said in the past. We have talked of a unified family court system—that was even mentioned during the passage of the Children Act 1989—and of bringing family law under one court. Surely most people cannot object to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Details."] Hon. Members may say give us the details, but the problem with the Child Support


Act is that the Government did not consult properly. We have to consult properly about a unified family court system and then introduce those measures. We cannot have the half-baked ideas that the Government have put before us tonight. We need full and proper consultation. If the official Opposition would join us, and if they had opposed the Child Support Act instead of propping up the Government, we might get—

Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Lynne: The official Opposition are propping up the Government with the Child Support Act and I will give way to the hon. Gentleman with pleasure.

Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. Lady intend to vote against the Bill tonight? She has said that she recognises that it improves matters. If she does not vote against it, is she not in danger of propping up the Government?

Ms Lynne: I have every intention of voting against the Bill tonight to ensure that our opposition to the Child Support Act is recognised, and members of the hon. Gentleman's party will be joining me in the Lobby. Not all of the official Opposition agree with the Front-Bench line. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to some of his Back-Bench colleagues.
None of us is opposed to the principle of both parents paying for their children—that is not in dispute and never has been. All parents must pay for their children's upkeep.

Mr. Oliver Heald: The principle is all very fine and good, but how does one make it work in practice? We tried the court system and it failed. Why does the hon. Lady believe that her unified court system would be any different, as it is the same thing? The point about the Child Support Act 1991 was that it laid down a formula, which means that many absent fathers have been paying for the first time.

Ms Lynne: If the 1991 Act meant that absent fathers were paying for the first time, some people might view it differently. What it does is to make so-called absent parents who are paying, pay more. The Government are not chasing parents who have not paid.

Mr. Heald: Under the old system, a father might pay £10 a week for a child, which is nothing when compared with the costs. Is the hon. Lady seriously trying to justify that?

Ms Lynne: Certainly not. That is why we want a unified family courts system. We do not want to return to the system of so-called family courts; we want a unified system that would encompass the Children Act and bring all family law under one umbrella. We are studying and consulting on that and those are the proposals that we will introduce in our own good time—not in the good time of the official Opposition or of the Government.

Mr. Bradley: Roughly when?

Ms Lynne: I will not respond to that. If the hon. Gentleman would say when he intends to introduce his policies on anything I might listen to him, but he and his party do not propose policies on anything. We are the ones who have been proposing policies. During the passage of the Child Support Bill, all the official Opposition could say was, "We support the Government."
The Child Support Act is just not working. It is not good enough to introduce a Bill that tinkers at the edges of a discredited Act, which the changes before us today do nothing substantially to change. Neither the Government nor their partners in the official Opposition have brought forward any radical changes. Why do not they now come out against the Act, given that the amendments which they discussed so eloquently in Committee were not accepted?
My predecessor warned the Minister more than a year ago that Liberal Democrat support was conditional on wholesale changes. The Bill is a sorry disappointment. My main criticism of the Act is that it introduced a rigid formula, and the departure system in the Bill does not substantially change that.

Mr. Burt: May I remind the hon. Lady that the original Act provided a rigid formula, and that original Act was supported by her party?

Ms Lynne: As the spokesman on social security for the Liberal Democrats, my predecessor made it clear in that debate, as the Minister will see if he looks at Hansard, that he would like to see the Act amended.
Instead of discussing what was or was not said in the past, we should look at the future. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but we are talking about the future of children, which is not a laughing matter. Whether children have a proper support system is extremely serious.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady is being unfair, as hon. Members are laughing not about the future of children but at her attempts to get out of what happened. We have all been looking at the future. We have spent the past few months looking at the future, trying to devise the right system, with to-ing and fro-ing between the Government and the Opposition and without complete agreement. The Opposition sometimes challenged us to get it more right and asked us for things that we could not give. We have been looking at the future and working for it. During all that time, the hon. Lady might have made a constructive contribution but she did not. That is what her party stands accused of, and why there are wry smiles on both sides of the House.

Ms Lynne: The Minister must accept that the Child Support Act is not working. If he could say that it was, that would be fine and my position might be wrong. But the Act does not take into account individual circumstances and, however much the Bill amends the formula, it will still mean that many lone parents will be worse off because their passported benefits will be taken away; so-called "absent parents"—I cannot stand that term, which should not have been used in the original Bill—

Mr. Dewar: I genuinely want some information and am not trying to snipe. In the past, the court system has always considered the interests of the two parties to an action and the interests of the child in reaching a financial solution. One of the characteristics of the agency is that it recognises the state's right—I use that word neutrally for the purpose of this question—to recover income support. Would the hon. Lady keep that feature in her new system?

Ms Lynne: It is up to the court to decide in each individual case. That is the whole point of having separate assessments and not sticking to a rigid formula. That is the whole point of a unified family court system.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady, I am sure unintentionally, has missed my point: that there is a new element in the Act, which is the recovery of benefit savings. That has not been a feature of matrimonial transactions in the past. Would the hon Lady want to retain that feature in her unified courts? It is a fundamental matter of principle. I do not prejudge whether it is right or wrong but simply ask her view on it.

Ms Lynne: Obviously, that feature could be retained in a unified family court system. I see no problem with that. I am talking about individual cases, which should be judged on their circumstances. Otherwise lone parents, so-called "absent parents" and second families will all suffer and that will continue to lead to family breakdown, which no one in the House wants.
I shall continue to press the Government to repeal the Act. I wish that the official Opposition Front Bench would do the same. We need a proper process of consultation so that all these arguments can be discussed at great length. We are not in the business of introducing something like the Government have brought forward without proper thought. We want a proper unified family court system that will work and will benefit children above all.
Opposition to the Act will not go away. Ultimately, it will have to be scrapped. [Interruption.] Hon. Members and right hon. Members who laugh may realise, in a few years' time when we have tried again and again to amend the discredited Child Support Act, that they got it wrong and will have to repeal it. They will then look back at this debate and realise that what we are saying is right: the Child Support Act must be scrapped.

Ms Mildred Gordon: I intend to vote against the Bill because, although it contains some concessions, which have been forced on the Government, it does not change the position for millions of families. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that from their post bags.
The Government have rejected a disregard that would lift children out of poverty. They have not included the abolition of the benefit penalty, which threatens with penury thousands of mothers who feel that they have strong reasons for not giving authorisation. The Bill does not abolish maintenance deductions from unemployed men's benefits, which cost more to collect than they are worth, and disability benefits are still taken into account when reckoning income.
The opposition to the Bill in Parliament is a pale reflection of the movement of women, men and children outside Parliament against the Government's child support policy. Hon. Members ignore that movement at the risk of bringing Parliament into further disrepute. People expect to see their deepest feelings and experiences reflected in decisions made in the House. The Bill ignores them and I shall therefore vote against it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 46.

Division No. 155]
[8.57 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Gorst, Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Hague, William


Amess, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Ancram, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Arbuthnot, James
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Hannam, Sir John


Atkins, Robert
Hargreaves, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Harris, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hawkins, Nick


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Hawksley, Warren


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hayes, Jerry


Bates, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Batiste, Spencer
Hendry, Charles


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Horam, John


Booth, Hartley
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Boswell, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hunter, Andrew


Brandreth, Gyles
Jack, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Bright, Sir Graham
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Browning, Mrs Angela
Key, Robert


Budgen, Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom


Burt, Alistair
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butcher, John
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Carttiss, Michael
Knox, Sir David


Cash, William
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Chapman, Sydney
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Churchill, Mr
Legg, Barry


Clappison, James
Leigh, Edward


Coe, Sebastian
Lidington, David


Congdon, David
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lord, Michael


Couchman, James
Luff, Peter


Cran, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
MacKay, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Maclean, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Madel, Sir David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Maitland, Lady Olga


Devlin, Tim
Malone, Gerald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Dover, Den
Marland, Paul


Duncan, Alan
Marlow, Tony


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Dykes, Hugh
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Elletson, Harold
Merchant, Piers


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Monro, Sir Hector


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Evennett, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Norris, Steve


Forth, Eric
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


French, Douglas
Ottaway, Richard


Fry, Sir Peter
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Gallie, Phil
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Pawsey, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth






Pickles, Eric
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thomason, Roy


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Riddick, Graham
Thumham, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Sackville, Tom
Trend, Michael


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whittingdale, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Willetts, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sproat, Iain
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stewart, Allan



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Simon Burns and


Sykes, John
Dr. Liam Fox.


NOES


Alton, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Austin-Walker, John
McCartney, Ian


Barnes, Harry
Mackinlay, Andrew


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Maddock, Diana


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Marek, Dr John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Clapham, Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Olner, Bill


Corbyn, Jeremy
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Corston, Jean
Pickthall, Colin


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sedgemore, Brian


Gerrard, Neil
Simpson, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


Hall, Mike
Steinberg, Gerry


Hardy, Peter
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Harvey, Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Henderson, Doug
Tyler, Paul


Heppell, John
Vaz, Keith


Hinchliffe, David



Hodge, Margaret
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Mr. David Rendel and


Lewis, Terry
Mr. David Chidgey.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 24th May, the Speaker shall, not later than one and a half hours after their commencement, put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Robert Jackson relating to Disclosure of Select Committee Papers, &.c; and the said Motion may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Wells.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

Ordered,
That Mr. James Cran be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Richard Spring be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Meat Products (Imports)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Paul Tyler: In recent months we have heard a great deal about the export of livestock. Consumers, producers and all those who are concerned with animal welfare should be examining the implications of that controversy for the import of meat and meat products. My text tonight is as follows:
Some people, led by some supermarkets, are selling veal that may be imported but take great care to ensure that it comes from humane rearing sources in Holland and elsewhere. I hope that nothing that we say today will diminish our commitment to that type of effort because, every time that a supermarket does that, it helps us to ensure that animals are reared humanely before we manage to change the law to ensure that they are reared humanely."—[Official Report, 22 February 1995; Vol. 255, c. 295.]
I think that we would all agree with that. Who made those remarks? It was none other than the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a debate in this place on 22 February. He went on to say that the case for such a selective attitude to imports was "interesting and powerful". The question is why he does not follow his point to its logical conclusion and take action to exclude products that do not meet our own standards of animal welfare and hygiene.
That is the real debate that should be occurring, and the furore in Plymouth, Brightlingsea, Shoreham and elsewhere has surely distracted attention from it. The fact is that farm animal welfare standards in the United Kingdom are unparalleled anywhere in Europe and probably in the world. Instead of vilifying our farmers we should be celebrating their achievements and considering how best to export our standards to the rest of the European Union.
The real issues are three-fold: first, promoting the highest possible standards of farm animal welfare, including poultry, and meat hygiene across the whole of the European Union; secondly, sustaining and promoting the development of a vibrant, prosperous and innovative agricultural community in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union; and, thirdly, ensuring that fair competition takes place in a genuine single market. Obviously those three issues are closely related.
The public demands meat that has been produced in the most humane fashion possible and that is as hygienic and of as high a quality as can be achieved. If consumers think that they are getting less than that from domestic producers, they will buy elsewhere and our farmers will suffer accordingly. As most farmers know, in that way the highest standards of animal welfare and hygiene are not just an irksome burden, but the bedrock of their trade and a vital marketing tool.
Equally, it must be the business of government to work at every level to ensure that those objectives are met. It is emphatically not sufficient merely to set up new mechanisms to introduce new policies in the United Kingdom. For example, policing the quality of domestically produced meat is a key weapon in the battle to ensure that British produce maintains and increases its competitive edge, but it is not enough. Just as important is working to promote those same virtues across the whole

European Union. All too often at present the Government seem to be hell-bent on doing the opposite: punishing our farmers for their success in raising standards.
Let us take Britain's pig producers as an example. New Government regulations mean that they will have to phase out the use of sow stalls by 1998. Although it is not without controversy, I believe that it is a welcome move that will lead to a marked improvement in animal welfare standards. There is wide agreement, even in other European states, that it is the way to go. However, the policy has been introduced in the kind of unilateral fashion that Ministers oppose so vehemently with regard to livestock exports. There has been no effective attempt to persuade fellow member states to follow our lead.
Worse still, there has been no attempt to assist domestic producers with the costs involved in making the necessary changes—at least, not in mainland Britain. In Northern Ireland, Ministers have recognised that the regulations will impose extra costs that are unique to our domestic producers and which therefore threaten to diminish their advantage over continental competitors. Accordingly, there is a system of European Union and national grant to help Northern Ireland pig producers through the transition, as I was able to disclose to the House recently.
In Scotland, Wales and England, however, the same Government Ministers see no such justification and refuse to give even a penny of assistance. Meanwhile, across the channel, our competitors are laughing all the way to the bank. Producers in Denmark and the Netherlands, who supply the lion's share of United Kingdom bacon imports, are under no such obligation to improve their standards; instead they enjoy a massively increased competitive advantage as United Kingdom producers struggle to meet the costs of conversion. If anything, the gap is widening, not narrowing.
The result is inevitable. Despite, indeed because of their uniquely high standards, British pig farmers are going out of business. A recent National Farmers Union survey showed that one in 10 pig producers could leave the industry after the introduction of the ban and that United Kingdom sow stocks could be reduced by as many as 93,000 animals. The NFU survey further estimated that that could mean a loss to the British economy of some £141 million, with 3,000 jobs slashed in the agricultural community.
The solution is not to go back on the sow stall regulations. Very few would advocate that and I certainly would not support it, but we cannot support ministerial idleness while pig producers go to the wall. The solution has to be to persuade our continental competitors to follow our lead, and the best way to do that would be to require their imports to meet our own standards. That surely is logical and reasonable and there is a powerful case for it.
When I asked the Minister, who, I am glad to see, is to respond to the debate, whether she was able to restrict the import of inhumanely reared pig meat, her answer was blithely dismissive:
It is not apparent that it would be feasible to identify the production methods used for the imported goods mentioned."—[Official Report, 2 February 1995; Vol. 253, c. 848.]
Many things in life are not apparent until one starts looking for them. That must be the experience of all Administrations and all Ministers. I would respectfully suggest that it is the job of the Minister, the Ministry and the Government to delve a little deeper into the issue. The


Minister's glib answer was merely another indication of how far removed many Ministers appear to be from the traditional rural constituencies that they claim to represent.
Imports that fail to meet our standards are not simply matters of animal welfare; they involve real dangers of hygiene and purity. In particular, there is a danger that United Kingdom consumers are being fed imported meat that contains illegally high chemical residues.
Clearly, the legal advice that the Minister and the RSPCA have received in relation to livestock exports is relevant. The obligations and responsibilities of our national Government to our national citizens to protect our consumers have a legal resonance way beyond that claimed for the treatment of animals once they leave our shores. It must be the responsibility of Government to protect our citizens, and the treaty of Rome and all other European treaties recognise that national responsibility.
I would instance the particular problem that was brought to light recently by the Consumers Association, which revealed how EU legislation on the use of hormones in livestock rearing was being routinely flouted on the continent. In tests on beef, traces of illegal synthetic hormone were found in 21 states from 10 countries and in liver samples from 11 out of 21 countries.
The drugs found, such as clenbuterol, are growth-promoting hormones and have been banned by the European Union since 1988. Their implications for human health are largely unknown but are certainly worrying. As the Consumers Association says:
some of the samples had concentrations of clenbuterol nearly high enough to be a single medicinal dose for humans.
I have no doubt that United Kingdom farmers are not entirely blameless. One or two traces of hormones may well be found in United Kingdom produce. However, UK farmers are always at or near the top of the hygiene safety league table. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of some continental competitors. Belgian beef liver produced nearly eight times as many positive results, and Spanish beef liver was 12 times more likely to contain traces of illegal drugs. More than one third of all Spanish beef liver sampled was found to contain traces of clenbuterol. No wonder the Consumers Association concluded that
we advise you not to eat Spanish calf's liver or beef liver.
That is surely a worrying sign for a Government who are protecting their citizens.
The implication is that UK consumers are unwittingly eating meat that is illegally contaminated and possibly dangerous, and that many continental farmers are routinely getting away with the use of illegal drugs—thereby gaining an important competitive and economic advantage over their more scrupulous UK colleagues. The answer must be to crack down on the importing of meat that does not meet our national standards. Unlike the problem of lower welfare standards, where there may be a question mark over whether it would be legal selectively to ban the import of certain products, this case is clear cut. The chemicals involved are illegal and their use cannot be tolerated.
Luckily, we now have a body that is well placed to stop contaminated meat reaching consumers—the Meat Hygiene Service. By giving it the task of cracking down on the clenbuterol cowboys, we could score a double

whammy—safeguarding public health and protecting our farmers from unfair competition. If the MHS has any useful additional role to justify the replacement of the local inspection system, that must be it. At a time when many people in the agricultural community are less than happy with the MHS—rightly so, given that its charges are dramatically higher than under the old system—such a change could not come soon enough. Otherwise, many people will ask whether the service is anything more than just another wing of the quangocracy.
The importance of urgently taking action cannot be overstated. Late at night, it may seem a peripheral problem of interest only to a few livestock farmers—but meat imports into the United Kingdom total £1.9 billion every year, while exports are worth only some £900 million. That is a £1 billion trade deficit, and the gap is growing remorselessly. The gap in bacon alone is more than £400 million, and many UK bacon producers have gone out of business.
Ministry inaction in the face of the growing livestock crisis must cease. Here is a positive way forward that would be supported by the farming industry and have the backing of animal pressure groups. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recently reiterated that it is critically important to keep re-emphasising the long-term objective of Europe-wide improvements in animal welfare.
The stark lesson is irrefutable. Boycotting one's own exports is unlikely to cause one's competitors anything more than bemused entertainment. An entirely legal boycott of their substandard products exported to our country is far more likely to produce real economic results. Demonstrating for that purpose may have less emotional appeal, but it would have far more practical effect.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) chose for his Adjournment debate a subject about which we all care—the welfare of farm animals. His concern that some food imported into this country might not have been produced in accordance with the animal welfare standards that apply here is shared by many other people. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, this country has high standards of farm animal welfare. We have a strong framework of legislation in the form of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and its subordinate regulations and welfare codes. We also provide advice to farmers and conduct publicity campaigns on specific welfare issues.
To ensure that our decisions are firmly based, we have the benefit of the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which provides independent advice, and we carry out extensive programmes of research. Given the long history and depth of interest in this country, and the efforts that we have devoted to the issue, it is hardly surprising that some of our animal welfare requirements set higher standards than apply elsewhere.
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall has mentioned, the veal crate issue is of concern. In 1990, we banned those crates, and close confinement stalls and tethers for pigs will have to be phased out by 1999. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman must be aware, in both those


cases, in 1991 the Council of Ministers regrettably refused to agree that our high standards should be included as requirements in the directive that laid down minimum standards for calves and pigs.
Unlike some other members of his party, the hon. Gentleman has been supportive of the need for the live animal export trade to continue.

Mr. David Harris: Not all that party's members.

Mrs. Browning: Not all its members, as my hon. Friend says, but the hon. Gentleman has publicly and openly gone on record as saying that he understands the argument. I hope that his understanding is not just based on the need to maintain a legal trade, which of course it is.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman also understands European law in relation to specific directives that allow other countries to produce under systems that we have made or will make illegal in this country. When the hon. Gentleman talks about banning specific meat imports from the European Community on the ground of the welfare conditions under which the meat has been reared, he must also understand that the same ruling would apply. It is legal in that country and we are a single market. Of all parties in the House, the federalist party that he represents surely understands the intricacies and detail of the single market, European rules, and the fact that, when a European directive applies, it does so throughout the Community; it is not selective in the way in which it applies. Instead of making cheap jibes at me about being glib, I hope that he would have the grace, therefore, to understand the law that he and his party constantly advocate should apply: we should have a single market and we should all agree to European rulings.

Mr. Tyler: The Minister may have missed my point about the different legality of the two positions. As I understand it, the Government of the member state is entitled to take a view about the protection of their consumers in a way that would not apply to the export of products to another country. It is a different legal situation. As I understand it, both the advice to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and to the Minister, which we have not seen the detail of, makes that distinction.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman may not have seen that advice, but he will be aware that today my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made a statement about the legal advice that the RSPCA has asked us to consider. In the further consideration of that legal advice, we have not changed our view; nor has the legal advice suggested to us that we should change it. As my right hon. Friend has said more than once to the House, it stands that we would be in serious trouble if we tried to contravene that legislation. That still holds good.

Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that some other members of the Liberal Democrats have actively campaigned to stop the export of animals to the continent? What are her views on that?

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is right. We are all aware of early-day motions on the Order Paper which contain the signatures of some of the hon. Gentleman's

friends. If he really wants to start at home in convincing people about animal welfare and the legalities that apply in this matter, he could do as well to start in his own party.

Mr. Tyler: I honestly do not think—I hope that the Minister will agree with this—that it will be helpful if we cast aspersions across the Floor. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), who is a member of the party of the Minister and of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), has been a vociferous advocate of a ban on all exports of livestock. I understand that there are people who take a different view. This evening, I hope that we will agree that, if we can find some way of exerting real pressure on other continental producers in the way that I have suggested, that will be helpful to all interests.

Mrs. Browning: After a rather personal attack on me, including the way in which I have answered questions and dealt with these matters in the past, it is no good the hon. Gentleman playing the Liberal Democrat trick of saying that we all want to work together and to be constructive. It is not possible to take that attitude after setting down a marker that he intends to be personal. If the hon. Gentleman cannot take it, he should not dish it out. I shall continue my speech.
Earlier this year, we secured the Commission's agreement to bring forward the review of the veal calves' directive, which was due originally in 1997. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of that when he accuses us of doing nothing and suggests that suddenly he has had the bright idea that things should be done and that the Government have dragged their feet. My officials and I have visited European capitals to impress upon Governments the weight of scientific evidence against the close confinement of veal calves and for a diet that includes roughage and adequate iron. The scientific veterinary committee is considering all the evidence and will report to the Commission later this year.
In the meantime, there are real concerns that the impact of the two important United Kingdom measures on the welfare of calves and pigs has been limited because they do not extend to the rest of Europe and elsewhere. I should mention that, although the ban on veal crates is not part of European requirements, a number of other member states, such as Germany, have standards that are in line with our own. It is true, nevertheless, that there are some important producers that do not, and that is why we are working to have the directive amended.
There are two concerns about the use of veal crates. First, as has been discussed in the House on many occasions, there is concern about calves transported from the United Kingdom to be reared in veal crates. Secondly, there is the concern voiced by the hon. Gentleman that imports from countries with lower welfare standards continue to be accepted despite the worries about the conditions in which animals were raised. The same concern also will apply in due course to imports of pork and pork products.
The hon. Gentleman has called for action on such imports and, as I have explained, we are taking action to have our standards adopted throughout the Community. He has suggested, however, action of a slightly different sort—a ban on the import of meat and meat products from those countries with less rigorous standards than our own. It is not that simple. I am advised that selective import restrictions of the sort proposed would not be compatible


with Community law. As I have explained, the UK is part of the single European market and we must accept products that comply with the laws of the European Community.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Browning: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman is extremely quick.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful. Of course, the debate can continue until 10.30 pm. Urgency is not as great as it usually is on these occasions.
Might the Ministry not take another tack, notwithstanding the regulations that we must follow within the single market? Would it not be possible legally to provide aid to our producers to enable them, for example, to label their products as welfare friendly? That would enable them to get around the problem and ensure that we do not import welfare-unfriendly products.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. What he has suggested is encouragingly happening in the marketplace. Consumers are becoming aware of welfare-friendly methods of rearing animals when they take decisions in butchers' shops and supermarkets to buy meat.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall seemed to suggest that consumers automatically made that choice. I think that there is quite a deal of work yet to be done to persuade consumers to be prepared to make the choice at the point of sale. I have been enormously encouraged by the supermarkets and butchers who have been talking to the Ministry about ways in which they can flag up on packaging the fact that an animal has been reared welfare-friendly conditions. I hope that we shall see more and more action to reinforce that trend.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) is right to say that such labelling informs the consumer. I hope that the consumer will be prepared to seek it out and to pay for welfare. Although we hear a great deal of noise about animal welfare, sadly that is not translated as much as we would like at the point of sale.

Mr. Tyler: On that point about information for consumers, will the Minister confirm that it is no longer possible to insist that the country of origin is put on a label, which might help in the circumstances about which she and I are worried?

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, although in one case it is easy—for example, if one is shopping for bacon, it is pretty easy to mark out Danish bacon. That will be quite an issue once the ban on sow stalls and tethers comes into effect, because in the discussions that I have been having with the trade, undoubtedly the message to the pig farmers from the purchasers is that they will be actively sourcing pigmeat that has been reared in those conditions. I think that that is very encouraging for the pigmeat trade as a whole. So, certainly in those areas, there is a precedent that it is very clear and easy to define. In many cases, although it is not mandatory, many producers and retailers are seeing the benefit of voluntarily flagging up on the label the country of origin. The United

Kingdom is becoming known to the UK consumer as the country that does apply high welfare standards, and we are doing all that we can to encourage that and to ensure that consumers actively seek it out when purchasing from their butchers or supermarkets.
As well as Community purchases, I know that there is concern about imports from outside the Community. In particular, many people are anxious about the effect of the new general agreement on tariffs and trade and are worried that it will have a detrimental affect on welfare standards. I understand that; at the same time, we should not overestimate the risks. GATT has been in existence for close on 50 years. In all that time, there has never been a successful challenge of the farm animal welfare safeguards applied by the member Governments of GATT. Nor does the new agreement impose any obstacles to the negotiation of bilateral agreements between the European Union and its third-country suppliers of meat and live animals. Indeed, the sanitary and phytosanitary code encourages the voluntary negotiation of "equitable agreements" between member Governments, where each agrees to recognise the health and hygiene requirements of the other where these have broadly the same effect.
The Commission has made clear that, in negotiating agreements of this kind on behalf of the EU, it will want to include animal welfare. That, I am sure, is the right way forward for the time being. It will take some time to build the same consensus internationally that we have at home about the need to respect animal welfare safeguards throughout the production chain. As a result, it will be premature to try to force the issue on to the agenda of the World Trade Organisation now. Were we to do so, we would end up with international standards far below our own and far below what are needed. I am sure that the best way to achieve our objectives is to build agreement in Europe and with our trading partners outside.
I must tell the hon. Member for North Cornwall, who has raised this important debate this evening, that getting a European-wide agreement and bringing the standards of other European partner countries up to our level has been and will continue to be a major part of the work that my right hon. Friend does in his negotiations with our partners.
I have dwelt until now on the legal issues, and although I do not pretend that our task will be easy, we will continue to work towards a position where the law as it applies within the European Union and in relation to its trading partners does not require us to contemplate what to do about lower standards—because it simply will not be relevant. There is, of course, other action that we can take while that process is going on. We are already looking at the prospects for developing the welfare-friendly veal market in the UK. We held a seminar on the subject in February and are also funding a demonstration farm, where producers can see how veal can be produced in systems with the highest welfare standards, and also suggesting to caterers that they should consider using welfare-friendly veal produced under the sort of conditions that we require in this country. I recognise that welfare-friendly veal is and will continue to be a specialist market which will account for a relatively small number of calves. Nevertheless, precisely


because it is a small market, the work in which MAFF and the Meat and Livestock Commission are engaged can make a difference.
I would also hope that our pig industry will seize the opportunity provided by the forthcoming ban on sow stalls and tethers, and emphasise to consumers the high welfare conditions under which British pigs are produced. When last week I attended the pig and poultry fair at Stoneleigh, I had many discussions with people in the industry. It was very encouraging to see that the people who purchase the pigmeat, the retailers and others, are very conscious of the fact that they will be demanding these high standards if they are to purchase in the future. That will automatically exclude imports from countries that do not raise their standards to the level demanded by the United Kingdom.
Consumers also need to be encouraged to look for British pork—especially bacon, which has already been mentioned this evening. Bacon has a guarantee of high welfare standards and high quality, 85 per cent. of British pigs being in the top two quality grades. At present much of the production in other member states from which we import pigmeat—mainly bacon—relies on systems that will be banned here by 1999. I think that consumers should be made aware of that.
As I have said, retailers are also conscious of the high-quality health and welfare standards that British pigmeat guarantees them. We have encouraged the development of the British quality assured pigmeat initiative, and announced recently that the Government would continue to run the pig assurance scheme—the farm assurance part of the BQAPI—and hold fees at current levels for three years. I hope that that will prove helpful to the pigmeat industry.
In recent months, retailers have made encouraging statements. I hope that those statements will come to fruition, and they will buy all their pigmeat from systems that meet our welfare standards.
Promotion of British meat and meat products is a major responsibility of the Meat and Livestock Commission, and it does a very good job. Hon. Members will have seen the entertaining and highly successful television campaign

entitled "Recipe for Love". Retailers need to be encouraged to identify and promote British meat to consumers, so that all the awareness of the quality and value being built up can be fully exploited.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the question of meat products coming into the United Kingdom and the possibility that they may contain veterinary medicine residues, hormone growth promoters and other types of drug which—as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out—would be a matter of great concern. Intra-Community trade in meat and animal products has now largely been harmonised: red meat and poultry products must be health marked, and accompanied by commercial documentation confirming that the consignments are in accordance with both public and animal health trade rules. Consignments of other animal products must currently be accompanied by official health certificates confirming compliance with Community or national rules, pending the introduction of new arrangements similar to those applying to red meat and meat products and poultry meat.
We take very seriously the need to test and monitor meat products that come into this country. The hon. Gentleman mentioned clenbuterol. I am aware that traces of clenbuterol have been found in meat; we are investigating the specific case that the hon. Gentleman cited, to ensure that we obtain all the facts and are able to discover how the information came through the Consumers Association and, if necessary, take action.
We should beware of complacency. The Ministry is working hard to secure EC-wide agreements to ensure that standards equal our own—not just so that people are not disadvantaged commercially; we genuinely believe in the need to raise animal welfare standards throughout the Community.
I am encouraged by what I have seen in my visits to countries in Europe. I believe that we have led the way, and that we are making some progress. I do not deny that in some cases it may be a long haul, but Britain has led the way. Farmers, the food industry and consumers also have a part to play. The Government, meanwhile, will continue to maintain the safety and quality of our meat here at home, and will do our best to ensure that standards in other EC countries are brought up to the level of ours.

Point of Order

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may know that earlier today Madam Speaker replied to me on a point of order about the contents of a letter that she sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) in connection with a matter of privilege which he raised. I should be grateful if you could relay these points to Madam Speaker on the points of order on which she graciously replied to me.
First, I take it that, because she did not say what was in the letter, it was not a ruling from the Chair in the normal sense and does not preclude any further ruling in respect of this matter. Secondly, unprecedented conduct, or possible unprecedented conduct, may require unprecedented procedures. In her letter, Madam Speaker told my hon. Friend that an early-day motion would be a

possibility. However, this Session has shown that a debate arising from such a motion could not easily be instigated from the Back Benches. That is because, whereas in the last Session there were 12 occasions on which a Member winning the ballot would have been able to have a debate on such a motion, because of the Jopling arrangements there is none available in this Session. Therefore, I suggest that conditions have changed.
An early-day motion on this matter has been signed by 60 hon. Members. Will you ask Madam Speaker whether hon. Members should be able not only to defend but perhaps to explain such matters, which are of the privilege of the public rather than of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not able to deal with this tonight. I assure him that his comments will have been noted.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Ten o'clock.